NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

[alfablue]

Sure. I think it should have been a touchdown too. If he had been touched by a Patriot before extending the ball over the line, it would have been ruled a complete pass, and downed at the one. If a running back had dove over the line at the one, extended the ball so it broke the plane,and then lost it out the back of the endzone, it would have been a touchdown. This guy was laying on the ground at the one, broke the plane of the goal line with the ball, and then lost it. Should have been a touchdown.

Would it have been a catch anywhere else on the field?

 

[Kepler]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

It appears to be the correct application of an incredibly stupid rule. c.f. the Tuck Rule.

Hopefully these two calls will be the bookends on our national nightmare and in future the Pats' streak will have an asterisk like PEDs saying "not actually illegal but we all still ignore this period as a stain on the sport."

 

[rufus]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

Would it have been a catch anywhere else on the field?

Anywhere else on the field, if a running back dives over the line and loses the ball, is it a fumble?

 

[SonofSouthie]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

It appears to be the correct application of an incredibly stupid rule. c.f. the Tuck Rule.

Hopefully these two calls will be the bookends on our national nightmare and in future the Pats' streak will have an asterisk like PEDs saying "not actually illegal but we all still ignore this period as a stain on the sport."

Hopefully.

 

[alfablue]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

Anywhere else on the field, if a running back dives over the line and loses the ball, is it a fumble?

First, you didn't answer the question. So would that be a catch anywhere else on the field?

Second, apples and oranges.

When a runner has a ball, or even if the QB moves the ball backwards from himself to change who has the ball- the question of possession is not in question- the ball is 100% in play.

When the ball is thrown forward- one has to establish that a catch took place before you can say that someone fumbled the ball.

That is what happened here. Before you can call a touchdown or a fumble, you have to have possession- to there are very specific rules that define what possession after a pass means. And before any on field things can be judged, possession must happen. Which INCLUDES falling to the ground and maintaining control of the ball. The ball CAN hit the ground as long as you maintain control. That one little detail didn't happen.

As for the fumbling runner- we've seen plenty of times that if a runner *starts* to loose control before hitting the line, it's a fumble. If it happens after the line, touchdown. So to actually answer your question- it depends on where the fumble started if it's a TD or not.

Back to the original question- is this a catch anywhere else on the field? Are you ok with receivers loosing control of the ball as they hit the ground at the 50 yard line? If you are, then you can call it a TD. But that changes the game quite a bit, to me. And I am NOT for allowing the ground to force a receiver loose control of the ball and call it a catch, just because.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

First, you didn't answer the question. So would that be a catch anywhere else on the field?

Second, apples and oranges.

When a runner has a ball, or even if the QB moves the ball backwards from himself to change who has the ball- the question of possession is not in question- the ball is 100% in play.

When the ball is thrown forward- one has to establish that a catch took place before you can say that someone fumbled the ball.

That is what happened here. Before you can call a touchdown or a fumble, you have to have possession- to there are very specific rules that define what possession after a pass means. And before any on field things can be judged, possession must happen. Which INCLUDES falling to the ground and maintaining control of the ball. The ball CAN hit the ground as long as you maintain control. That one little detail didn't happen.

As for the fumbling runner- we've seen plenty of times that if a runner *starts* to loose control before hitting the line, it's a fumble. If it happens after the line, touchdown. So to actually answer your question- it depends on where the fumble started if it's a TD or not.

Back to the original question- is this a catch anywhere else on the field? Are you ok with receivers loosing control of the ball as they hit the ground at the 50 yard line? If you are, then you can call it a TD. But that changes the game quite a bit, to me. And I am NOT for allowing the ground to force a receiver loose control of the ball and call it a catch, just because.

It's a catch. I think the criteria is did he make a "football move" before losing possession, right? He clearly changed his direction from parallel to the goal line to going towards the goal line, and intentionally extends the ball to the goal line (this wasn't part of his natural fall to the ground). The entire point of the game is to get the ball across the goal line, so if that doesn't count as a "football move" I am at a loss for what should. If the NFL has a different definition of what a "football move" is, they probably need to include trying to score.

 

[joecct]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

The various professional leagues, in the interest of getting it "right" have gotten it wrong.

The CFL has taken the approach that if it's close, the call stands. Only the obvious errors are reversed.

 

[alfablue]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

It's a catch. I think the criteria is did he make a "football move" before losing possession, right? He clearly changed his direction from parallel to the goal line to going towards the goal line, and intentionally extends the ball to the goal line (this wasn't part of his natural fall to the ground). The entire point of the game is to get the ball across the goal line, so if that doesn't count as a "football move" I am at a loss for what should. If the NFL has a different definition of what a "football move" is, they probably need to include trying to score.

So is it a catch if the same play and same move happened at the 3 yard line? And since he was not touched, then he could have gotten up and run across the line.

But that is the real question- does that count as a full move or not. Or does the ground rules for catching trump that move?

BTW, one has to have full possession across the line for it to count.

Picture this- start at the 1in line, QB drops to the 2 to pass the ball to a receiver on the outside running toward the pylon. If the ball gets to him at the 2.5 yard line and he fumbles with the ball through the ends zone vs the 1.5 yard line- how would both of those plays be ruled?

 

[alfablue]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

The various professional leagues, in the interest of getting it "right" have gotten it wrong.

The CFL has taken the approach that if it's close, the call stands. Only the obvious errors are reversed.

But to the written rules- it was right. The receiver is required to maintain possession through hitting the ground, especially if the ball hits the ground. The replay showed he failed this one component of a catch.

 

[alfablue]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

It's a catch. I think the criteria is did he make a "football move" before losing possession, right? He clearly changed his direction from parallel to the goal line to going towards the goal line, and intentionally extends the ball to the goal line (this wasn't part of his natural fall to the ground). The entire point of the game is to get the ball across the goal line, so if that doesn't count as a "football move" I am at a loss for what should. If the NFL has a different definition of what a "football move" is, they probably need to include trying to score.

Actually, looking at the rules again, the "football move" appears to only apply when the player is upright on both feet (aka- a runner). In this instance, he's should be considered under the "Player Going to the Ground" item. So that lean isn't even considered a football move in the context of that play.

Here's the full context of the replay rules for a reception:

ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

1) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. 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 until after his initial contact with 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.

Item 2. Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3. End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

Item 4. Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.

Item 5. Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

Item 6. Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass. It is not necessary for the player to maintain control of the ball when he lands out of bounds.

ARTICLE 4. INCOMPLETE PASS
Any forward pass (legal or illegal) is incomplete and the ball is dead immediately if the pass strikes the ground or goes out of bounds. An incomplete pass is a loss of down, and the ball returns to the previous spot.

Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

So is it a catch if the same play and same move happened at the 3 yard line? And since he was not touched, then he could have gotten up and run across the line.

But that is the real question- does that count as a full move or not. Or does the ground rules for catching trump that move?

BTW, one has to have full possession across the line for it to count.

Picture this- start at the 1in line, QB drops to the 2 to pass the ball to a receiver on the outside running toward the pylon. If the ball gets to him at the 2.5 yard line and he fumbles with the ball through the ends zone vs the 1.5 yard line- how would both of those plays be ruled?

To me if he makes the same moves to change his direction and go forward at the 3 it is still a catch and fumble that he recovers and could then advance. If because he's at the 3 he just goes down without making the move forward and it comes loose it's incomplete. He had complete control of the ball from initial catch all the way through extending it beyond the goal line, it never moved until hitting the ground. Changing his direction and extending the ball is a football move, and he maintained complete control while doing it. Not sure what the last part is getting at, but through the end zone is a touchback and out at the 1.5 is out at the 1.5.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

Actually, looking at the rules again, the "football move" appears to only apply when the player is upright on both feet (aka- a runner). In this instance, he's should be considered under the "Player Going to the Ground" item. So that lean isn't even considered a football move in the context of that play.

Here's the full context of the replay rules for a reception:

1,2 and 3 of that rule are all satisfied by the catch in question. As to the player going to the section, at what point is initial contact with the ground? He had full control until the ball touches the ground and knocks it loose. Even based on the exact reading of that section, he remained in control UNTIL the ball hit the ground, which does not seem to make it incomplete. It says it if he loses control AND the ball hits the ground before regaining control it is incomplete. He had control all the way to the ground and then lost it. I don't see how even the letter of the law makes that incomplete.

 

[alfablue]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

To me if he makes the same moves to change his direction and go forward at the 3 it is still a catch and fumble that he recovers and could then advance. If because he's at the 3 he just goes down without making the move forward and it comes loose it's incomplete. He had complete control of the ball from initial catch all the way through extending it beyond the goal line, it never moved until hitting the ground. Changing his direction and extending the ball is a football move, and he maintained complete control while doing it. Not sure what the last part is getting at, but through the end zone is a touchback and out at the 1.5 is out at the 1.5.

If it's an incomplete pass at the 3, it's incomplete in the endzone. The rules are pretty clear that there's no difference in what a catch is anywhere. I posted them- take a look at them.

And the rules also are pretty clear that a football move is for runners, not divers.

My point is more about that the situation is very different depending on running or passing. The player getting the ball at the 2.5 makes it a touchback, the 1.5 makes it an incomplete pass.

So defining possession is important.

 

[alfablue]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

1,2 and 3 of that rule are all satisfied by the catch in question. As to the player going to the section, at what point is initial contact with the ground? He had full control until the ball touches the ground and knocks it loose. Even based on the exact reading of that section, he remained in control UNTIL the ball hit the ground, which does not seem to make it incomplete. It says it if he loses control AND the ball hits the ground before regaining control it is incomplete. He had control all the way to the ground and then lost it. I don't see how even the letter of the law makes that incomplete.

Uh, how could he be considered a runner when he landed on his body? He never got even one foot planted, let alone 2, both of which are required to satisfy #3. So that puts "Item 1. Player Going to the Ground" into play, and it was not fully satisfied.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

If it's an incomplete pass at the 3, it's incomplete in the endzone. The rules are pretty clear that there's no difference in what a catch is anywhere. I posted them- take a look at them.

If he makes the move forward at the 3 it isn't incomplete, if he goes straight down and loses it then it is incomplete.

3) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

He clearly turned up field.

 

[alfablue]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

If he makes the move forward at the 3 it isn't incomplete, if he goes straight down and loses it then it is incomplete.



He clearly turned up field.

With both feet? Did you miss that part in 3?

 

[jerphisch]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

With both feet? Did you miss that part in 3?

It doesn't say anything about BEING on both feet, it says after both feet have touched the ground. He turned up field from his knees, I don't see how that doesn't satisfy the rule.

 

[alfablue]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

It doesn't say anything about BEING on both feet, it says after both feet have touched the ground. He turned up field from his knees, I don't see how that doesn't satisfy the rule.

Yes it does-

maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Neither of his feet were on the ground. Nor was he able to ward off impending contact with an opponent, was not tucking the ball, was not turning up field, and not taking additional steps. He was never a runner. He was a diver, and has to be considered a player diving to the ground.

I also don't see that massive lunge- I see momentum from catching the ball carry him across the line.

Still, he was never going to land on his feet, so he has to be considered under the player going to the ground move. And he never satisfied that.

 

[rufus]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

As for the fumbling runner- we've seen plenty of times that if a runner *starts* to loose control before hitting the line, it's a fumble. If it happens after the line, touchdown. So to actually answer your question- it depends on where the fumble started if it's a TD or not.

And again, if that patriot db had gotten a hand on him before he twisted to get the ball over the line, it would have been ruled a catch. He was only losing control of the ball after it broke the plane.

 

[rufus]

Re: NFL 2017: With Dollar Signs in Goodell's Eyes

But to the written rules- it was right. The receiver is required to maintain possession through hitting the ground, especially if the ball hits the ground. The replay showed he failed this one component of a catch.

He was already laying on the ground.