I apologize if this is tin foil hat territory. BUT, with the bad PR that the refs have gotten all season, particularly in two games favoring the Patriots, any chance that both calls were made in part for PR purposes? To be fair I thought at least the second one was a good call. I think the first one was a bobble.
The Clement one was obvious. He didn't secure the ball until after the first foot hit and it came down on the White after that. It was turning in his hands we see that all of the time ruled a non catch. Al and Chris were incredulous.
The Ertz one SHOULD be a catch but the NFL doesnt interpret the rule that way in practice. The Steelers got jobbed on that exact thing.
Imagine casual non football watchers at parties trying to understand why either isn't a TD. Now couple it with the huge ratings hit and the NFL desire for scoring and TDs and a scandal free game.
It's clear as day.
The Clement one was a little trickier, but he retained possession throughout.
Exactly. Ertz was a runner and broke the plane. James literally caught the ball, fell, and dropped the ball all in one motion
There is no controversy on the Ertz play.
But it seems like nobody understands the rules anymore.
The Clement one was a little trickier, but he retained possession throughout.
Quote:
was an obvious touchdown and much, MUCH different from al the other "going to the ground" plays that were reviewed during the season (Jesse James, Sterling Sheppard).
Exactly. Ertz was a runner and broke the plane. James literally caught the ball, fell, and dropped the ball all in one motion
Except the rule says the player needs to make a "football move" to establish control. What does that mean? The precedent was always full control through the ground if done in the motion of making a catch. That's why Jesse James wasn't a catch.
The rule DOESNT say take 1.5 stumbling steps while catching.
Mind you I personally think both should be catches but that's not how they have interpreted that rule at all.
Clement didn't have clear possession/control until VERY late in the process. The rule has again consistently been interpreted. If the ball is moving around it's not controlled.
Quote:
In comment 13822893 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
was an obvious touchdown and much, MUCH different from al the other "going to the ground" plays that were reviewed during the season (Jesse James, Sterling Sheppard).
Exactly. Ertz was a runner and broke the plane. James literally caught the ball, fell, and dropped the ball all in one motion
Except the rule says the player needs to make a "football move" to establish control. What does that mean? The precedent was always full control through the ground if done in the motion of making a catch. That's why Jesse James wasn't a catch.
The rule DOESNT say take 1.5 stumbling steps while catching.
Mind you I personally think both should be catches but that's not how they have interpreted that rule at all.
Clement didn't have clear possession/control until VERY late in the process. The rule has again consistently been interpreted. If the ball is moving around it's not controlled.
"Football move" doesn't exist anymore
Also Ertz had possession all the way through each step up to crossing the plane
Yes, he seemed excited when the Pats scored and subdued when the Eagles scored. Hummm...
Ask Dez Bryant.
Remember that this basically cost them an appearance in the NFC Championship so it's not like it was a random mid season call.
If I'm not mistaken, this play was one of the reasons they changed the rule though
When does a receiver become a runner? Does he have to run for a finite time or take so many steps? It's never explained......
Football move? What the hell constitutes that? Has that ever been defined in the rules?
Watching the two td's, the Ertz td is cut and dried.....
The other is up in the air.....what is possession? Can the ball move? The ball obviously moved as his foot hit the out of bounds line......so obviously the ball can move?
What about the fumble the previous week? Myles Jack takes the ball away from Lewis and it's a fumble recovery....Lewis is hit by Jack, the ball moves, but it slides down his leg, with his arm still on it, and his knee touches the ground....after he hits the ground then it comes loose.....after review, they determined he did not have possession because the ball was moving, and they called it a recovered fumble.....in both cases the ball moved, and yet one is called a possession and the other is not.....
So now we have to have a clear definition of what possession is? This is getting insane....
Quote:
In comment 13822893 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
was an obvious touchdown and much, MUCH different from al the other "going to the ground" plays that were reviewed during the season (Jesse James, Sterling Sheppard).
Exactly. Ertz was a runner and broke the plane. James literally caught the ball, fell, and dropped the ball all in one motion
Except the rule says the player needs to make a "football move" to establish control. What does that mean? The precedent was always full control through the ground if done in the motion of making a catch. That's why Jesse James wasn't a catch.
The rule DOESNT say take 1.5 stumbling steps while catching.
Mind you I personally think both should be catches but that's not how they have interpreted that rule at all.
Clement didn't have clear possession/control until VERY late in the process. The rule has again consistently been interpreted. If the ball is moving around it's not controlled.
He wasn't stumbling.
Link - ( New Window )
We’ve bitched all year about overturning plays that weren’t clearly wrong calls, so we shouldn’t complain when they do it the right way, even if it helps the fucking Eagles.
Bingo.
To me though, the really vexing thing is that replay isn’t making any of these calls better or more definitive. I say get rid of the every scoring play reviews and just give the coaches one challenge per game. Officiating can and always will be part of the game. The sacrifice in speed and spontaneous enjoyment is not worth the delays in the game if replay isn’t going to be more accurate.
To me though, the really vexing thing is that replay isn’t making any of these calls better or more definitive. I say get rid of the every scoring play reviews and just give the coaches one challenge per game. Officiating can and always will be part of the game. The sacrifice in speed and spontaneous enjoyment is not worth the delays in the game if replay isn’t going to be more accurate.
The Ertz play was clearly a TD by the letter of the rules or any other way you want to look at it. He caught the ball and very clearly established himself as a runner. Then broke the plane while he had possession of the ball.
He wasn't going to the ground while making the catch which would have meant he had to maintain possession through contact with the ground. Further, the refs on the field ruled a TD and the call was confirmed.
Both the original call (of him becoming a runner with possession after making the catch) and not overturning it were correct to the very spirit and application of the rules.
That said, I honestly have no idea what the refs were looking at on the Clement play (or how many here can say that was a catch). It was clear as day shifting in and into his other arm. The first step, he did not have possession. And his second step after possession, he stepped on the white. It was the easiest open and cut reversal.
Many teams, including the Giants at the beginning of the year, have been robbed on this maintaining possession and continuation. The fact the refs did not reverse the first TD is a mystery. Collinsworth was right to say "I give up", he said that because he commentates on a ton of games and that one was a clear cut as they come.
The Ertz one SHOULD be a catch but the NFL doesnt interpret the rule that way in practice. The Steelers got jobbed on that exact thing.
You and an incredible amount of people are just completely wrong on this (including the analyst of the game, a usually solid Collinsworth). Yes there have been controversial going to the ground "catch" calls. This isn't one of them. This isn't the James play. This isn't the Dez play where he was simultaneously in the act of "catching" the ball while also falling to the ground.
This was a clear catch where he gained possession of the ball and became a runner. At that point, the second "a runner" crosses the goal line, it's a TD.
It amazes me how many people don't get this
The Ertz catch was a catch accept when discussing with Eagle fans. The only problem with it is if it had been ruled incomplete because the the ref didn't see a football move or he felt like calling it incomplete, they probably would not have reversed the call.
Ultimately, the NFL probably realized the "catch rule" ruined their season and didn't want it to be the big story after the Superbowl so they probably weren't overturning any call in the game unless it was a really bad call.
Personally, I viewed it as he had control of the ball the full time. He didn't bobble or lose control of the ball when shifting it to complete the catch. I say he controlled the ball. If you say he didn't, can you say definitively that he didn't? I don't think you can either way, which means the call on the field stands.
Matt M. : 6:32 am : link : reply
do you think there was definitive evidence to overturn the call? That is the key. You may think it was a catch or not, but it was called a catch and TD. That means there must be no doubt via replay in order to overturn. I don't think that's the case.
I wish I could find a link to the Kelvin Benjamin TD vs. the Pats that was overturned. Greg Olsen had a similar play. There are several out there. Heck, even Leonard Fournette had a call reversed because of the ball shifting in his arms
The whole surviving the ground bullshit needs to stop too. Ertz clearly got feet down, but Sterling Shepard took 3 steps in the end zone and was ruled incomplete.
I like the fact both were called TD's. It shouldn't have taken the biggest stage of the year to get them to finally use common sense though.
Ertz secured the ball, both feet in bounds, upright and balanced, turned upfield, was able to prepare for an oncoming hit, and ran towards the end zone when he was clipped by the defender and then crossed the plane.
On the second one, you can see why people might want a second look, but it's obviously a catch, run, and crossing the plane. TD, and only those with bias would find it controversial.
The first TD is a prime example of what the NFL had been overturning all season long, a clear bobble and no re-control of the ball before touching the rear boundary.
If that was a TD, then many incorrect calls were made all season long.
PaulBlakeTSU : 8:41 am : link : reply
was going to the ground as he was trying to secure the catch. That is why he had to maintain control of the ball throughout going to the ground.
I don't think a player taking three steps without a bobble of the ball should necessitate maintaining it. Three steps should establish possession no matter if you go to the ground or not.
Technically that is the current rule. All of the complexity involved is trying to define exactly what possession is.
There is no controversy on the Ertz play.
But it seems like nobody understands the rules anymore.
Exactly this. I didn't watch much football this year, but I assume they must have really screwed the pooch all year for that play to even be under scrutiny from long time posters here, let alone professional announcers.
Except the rule says the player needs to make a "football move" to establish control. What does that mean?
Pretty sure the "football move" language has been removed from the rule this year.
Except the rule says the player needs to make a "football move" to establish control. What does that mean?
Pretty sure the "football move" language has been removed from the rule this year.
Exactly. There is no " football move " in the rule anymore. It's been replaced by "establish himself as a runner" which is a bit more exact in what they're looking for in a completion.
A football move leaves a lot open for interpretation by an official where now it's just was he a runner or falling to the ground?
Catch - CHECK! Ertz and Dez
Two Feet- CHECK! Ertz and Dez
Stumble / Three feet down-in process of catch- CHECK! Ertz and Dez
The ONLY difference is that Ertz broke the plan before he lost control- BUT- remember the ruling on Dez was that you need to complete the process through the ground for it to be a catch. That has nothing to do with the goal line.
Again- I think both of these SHOULD be catches but by rule neither is, and the precedent has been set over and over with this dumb through the ground rule as mentioned with Dez, Jesse James and tons of other calls.
The Clement one was just ridiculous he didn't secure the ball until very very late in the process- it was moving around in his grasp.
The NFL made a business decision to let those 2 calls stand. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't pay attention to how the refs typically enforce those rules.
It's been pointed out Jeffrey is close enough to the line for it to be ok. Seems if it was called this close it could be called countless times in a game. He appears to be within a yard of the line,and there's some leeway there for the refs and WR's.
He also signaled to the linesman on that side like most receivers do to be sure he's lined up ok, and was told he's good. While technically he could be seen to be illegal, if he checked and was told he's good, then he was.
Catch - CHECK! Ertz and Dez
Two Feet- CHECK! Ertz and Dez
Stumble / Three feet down-in process of catch- CHECK! Ertz and Dez
The ONLY difference is that Ertz broke the plan before he lost control- BUT- remember the ruling on Dez was that you need to complete the process through the ground for it to be a catch. That has nothing to do with the goal line.
Again- I think both of these SHOULD be catches but by rule neither is, and the precedent has been set over and over with this dumb through the ground rule as mentioned with Dez, Jesse James and tons of other calls.
The Clement one was just ridiculous he didn't secure the ball until very very late in the process- it was moving around in his grasp.
The NFL made a business decision to let those 2 calls stand. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't pay attention to how the refs typically enforce those rules.
What you're missing on the Ertz play unlike the Dez one is Ertz was ruled to have established himself as a runner and wasn't stumbling. That was upheld on replay. He clearly established himself as a runner before going to the ground.
With Dez, it was ruled on replay that he was stumbling and not running, making him have to control the ball through contact with the ground.
That's what makes these plays different.
But the Clement TD is 100% unacceptable based on the standard we've seen this year. The Kelvin Benjamin play that was overturned from being a TD was a play where a boblle wasn't even visible and they changed the call.
On this one, the ball is definitely moving and they let it stand.
The issue is twofold - the complex rules of what constitutes a catch, and the inconsistency in ruling the catch, both in real time and on review.
We've even seen a wide range of interpretation on surviving the ground, including an interpretation that rules a play a TD when a defender ends up fully in possession of the ball. We've seen three steps and then the ball come loose called an incomplete pass. We've seen a lot of strange shit this year and all the Super Bowl did was confirm that consistency isn't a strong point when enforcing rules.
But the Clement TD is 100% unacceptable based on the standard we've seen this year. The Kelvin Benjamin play that was overturned from being a TD was a play where a boblle wasn't even visible and they changed the call.
On this one, the ball is definitely moving and they let it stand.
The issue is twofold - the complex rules of what constitutes a catch, and the inconsistency in ruling the catch, both in real time and on review.
We've even seen a wide range of interpretation on surviving the ground, including an interpretation that rules a play a TD when a defender ends up fully in possession of the ball. We've seen three steps and then the ball come loose called an incomplete pass. We've seen a lot of strange shit this year and all the Super Bowl did was confirm that consistency isn't a strong point when enforcing rules.
Totally agree with you on the comparison to the Benjamin play. In fact while they were reviewing the Clement play, I brought that up to friends and said they'll overturn it based on how much like the Benjamin play I thought it was.
The ball moving was actually clearer in the replays of the Clement
play than the Benjamin one, and I still don't know how they could reverse one and not the other.
100% agreed.
My biggest issue isn't so much them letting it stand but the inconsistency of how they reach their final decision. To me those plays were about as identical as two plays could be and yet they were reviewed and then ruled differently.
Bryant jumped up in mid-air to make the acrobatic catch, and then as he came down, his momentum going forward combined with his legs tangling with the Packers CB caused him to immediately stumble to the ground.
Ertz caught a ball across the middle while in stride, balanced, and upright with total body control (i.e. not going to the ground when he caught it), he then became a runner and then was clipped/dove crossing the plane before coughing up the ball as he hit the ground.
The two plays aren't comparable. Bryant was going to the ground as soon as he landed. He had to complete the catch through the ground.
As much as people like to see "two feet and teh ball not moving," that too would create absolute chaos because we can't have it such that evry bang-bang play is a fumble.
Watch this play from a Michigan game and imagine it were the pros.
By requiring nothing more "possession" to mean the ball not moving and two feet, this would be a catch and a fumble. That's insane.
Even worse, the fumble would be considered "ground caused" because he already had possession and so it would be considered a completion and a dead ball.
Also, every time a player makes an unsuccessful diving catch, it will be a catch and fumble so long as the ball was secure in his hands before hitting the ground. Because as soon as the player hits the ground, even if the ball is dislodged instantly, there will still be a split second freeze frame where the player has the ball in his hands and a knee or elbow touching the ground making it a catch.
Because of these issues, the League has to add additional criteria to define a catch, which it is constantly tweaking to find the best definition they can.