Tell me what you think....
Was it a catch?
[ame="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5565073"]Bears Survive On Late Overruled Call - ESPN Video - ESPN[/ame]
I think it was a touchdown without a doubt. Terrible officating IMO. The ref closest to the play called it a TD but it got overturned? Something is not right there.
Wildcats11 Wrote:I think it was a touchdown without a doubt. Terrible officating IMO. The ref closest to the play called it a TD but it got overturned? Something is not right there.
The rule is that the second ref that comes in always overrules.
zaga_fan Wrote:The rule is that the second ref that comes in always overrules.
I know all the rules, but the second ref that comes in is looking at it from behind or a bad angle. The ref that called it a TD, it happened right at his feet. :Thumbs:
It appeared to me that he caught it. I am no expert on all the rules of the NFL, I believe that if his hand was under the ball when he hit the ground they would have called it complete because he would have had "control" of the ball. He still had it under control even though his hand was on top.
Wildcats11 Wrote:I know all the rules, but the second ref that comes in is looking at it from behind or a bad angle. The ref that called it a TD, it happened right at his feet. :Thumbs:
I think it's stupid that the second ref automatically overrules....
I'm sure we all do.
Jarons Wrote:It appeared to me that he caught it. I am no expert on all the rules of the NFL, I believe that if his hand was under the ball when he hit the ground they would have called it complete because he would have had "control" of the ball. He still had it under control even though his hand was on top.
When catching it in the endzone you have to gain control and have control while you're down.
I think his knee came down before the ball touched the ground, making it a catch.
Jarons Wrote:It appeared to me that he caught it. I am no expert on all the rules of the NFL, I believe that if his hand was under the ball when he hit the ground they would have called it complete because he would have had "control" of the ball. He still had it under control even though his hand was on top.
but fact is when he hit the ground the play was knocked loose from his grip...no touchdown:Thumbs:
Kinda looked like he just let go, IMO it was a touchdown.
Wildcatk23 Wrote:Kinda looked like he just let go, IMO it was a touchdown.
I thought so too. I left that out of my previous post.
Rule is specific that the receiver must show possession after he hits the ground.
"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."
Stardust Wrote:Rule is specific that the receiver must show possession after he hits the ground.
"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."
so what ya' think...
catch or no?
That's a TD. how in the world can they overrule that? those Ref's must have been the ones that Refereed the Estill/Garrard Game The Other Night
His knee touched the ground while he still had possession but the ball did hit the ground while he was in the act of the catch, so I guess if you go by the rule book it's not a catch.
Touchdown, without a doubt! That's crazy.
The ball touched the ground while he was in the act of the catch. The rule that Dust brought up is the rule the officials have to go by and they made the right call.
Wow, looked good to me in slow motion.
zaga_fan Wrote:so what ya' think...
catch or no?
By rule, I agree with the refs. But this is a rule that needs to be changed. That was a horrible call and IMO, a catch. In baseball, that would be a catch!
Aslan Wrote:The ball touched the ground while he was in the act of the catch. The rule that Dust brought up is the rule the officials have to go by and they made the right call.
But that rule said when the player "touches" the ground.
We know you have to get 2 feet down.
So I think when his knee hit that was officially a TD.
By the rules....incomplete
By the heart, eye and common sense factor...Touchdown!
Someone said it on TV last night that the rule is penalizing Calvin for being a great athlete. The days of every catch having to be a two handed, tucked-in catch are over. Many great WR's can make honest-to-goodness catches with one hand. Calvin is one of them.
You can clearly see him fall to the ground with possession of the football palmed in his hand.
Bad call by the ref's.. idc who ya are.
Stardust Wrote:By rule, I agree with the refs. But this is a rule that needs to be changed. That was a horrible call and IMO, a catch. In baseball, that would be a catch!
Isn't it also a rule that the ground can not cause a fumble? Reason I mention this because the ground it seems is what causes him to lose possesion of the ball.
Idk I think its a TD but its over tough luck for the Lions.
zaga_fan Wrote:But that rule said when the player "touches" the ground.
We know you have to get 2 feet down.
So I think when his knee hit that was officially a TD.
He has to maintain possession the entire time he was on the ground. The rule needs to be updated for clarification because on most plays the play ends when the players knee hits the ground.
Based on current rules it would be incomplete but honestly i would have called it a td too