The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Are you f*ucking kidding me??That was a TD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ??? ??? ???

yea, somebody should go through the nfl rulebook and get rid of all these stupid rules like this and the tuck rule. dumb.

I agree.  I think we talked about this last season with some other issue.

Rules exist to help judge a catch.  But when you look at a guy that obviously catches a TD and then it's disallowed by some technicality, it undermines the spirit of the rule and it needs to be revisited.

You know the best way to make sure you don't get your TD taken away from you...hold on to the ball when it hits the ground.

I thought it wasn't a touchdown when it happened because he was too busy celebrating to be bothered to hold on to the damn ball.  The ground knocked it right out of his hand, and a professional in that situation should know to hold on to the ball no matter what to make sure your catch counts.

Fine, by the letter of the law, it's no catch.  Unfortunately, he caught the ball for a TD.

The rule needs to be revisited, because its intention doesn't match reality.

Lions got jobbed big time. That rule bows. Two feet, ass, hand, body on the ground AND contact by defensive player while in control of the ball. TD.

Once two feet down in the end zone and possession, the play should be over.  What he does after that should be irrelevant.  Wanna discuss that further?  Fine - once one foot and an ass are down in the end zone with possession, the play should be over.

This rule sucks, I have always hated it, and the NFL should overturn the call immediately.  The new CBA should include a clause to remove this rule from the rule book.

He had possession for like 3 minutes then got up off the ground and it slipped out of his hands.  No catch?  My ass...

The rule is you must maintain control throught the entire process.

After watching the video, it appears that either one of two things happened.  He never got full control of the ball OR in an effort to celebrate the TD he spiked the ball too early.

If the former than the call was the right call and WR never had a TD and never would have.  If the latter shame on him for his mental mistake. 

The ref made the right call for the rule.  Fans may whine and cry.  But  every smart coach will be playing that tape, explaining the rule to the WRs and stressing the importance of not making the same mistake. 

The rule doesn't need to change, because the coaches will make sure that their players don't do the same thing. 

The rule DOES need to change, because its stupid.  He had control of the ball, it was very clear, in the endzone.  There was no debate about that.

However, after the play was over, he used the ball to help himself get up and THEN lost control of it.

In my mind, and clearly in his, this was AFTER the play was over (possibly signified by the whistle, and an official raising his hands). 

Its a sham to take away a catch, a game-winning catch at that, for something that happened AFTER THE PLAY WAS OVER!

I understand,the rule,I even agree with it in places....I watched this live,(listening through the crying, shrieking Bears fans in attendance),Fox had Mike Perera (sp?) recently retired head of officials was on while the ruling was being challenged. Brian Billick was trying to make the point the Perera,that the catch was made and it was in the second movement that the ball moved (IE trying to get extra yardage,in Baseball taking the ball out of the glove). I agree with that it should have been ruled it was a second movement....

I think the the rule should have some discretion,rather than scrapping it,like two feet control in the end zone, the field of play out of bounds keep it the same...

Slight hijack,Doesn't this rule make it almost really hard to rule a WR fumble after a catch?

I hope (With guy's like Marshall,and Bess) that the scrutiny of this rule get's applid the next time we think they caught the ball then fumbled....

Yes it does. 

I heard this question offered this morning.  If instead of catching that ball in the endzone he catches it at the one and reached out with the ball in his hand so that it crosses the plane and then he loses it after crossing the plane just like in the play, is THAT a TD?

They are getting carried away with this now.  Just like in the preseason game, Marshall caught a pass, took 2 full steps with the ball tucked under his arm and the ball is then stripped by a defensive back.  Fumble right?  Nope, incomplete pass.  So I guess now no matter what the hell happens you haven't caught it until you hand the ball to the ref and even that's a bit shaky.  And the really stupid thing is that the rule is there to help the officials determine whether he really caught it or not, but we now have instant replay where it's a lot easier to determine if the catch was made or not.  We don't need the rule anymore.  It needs to be removed and have close plays reviewed to determine if it was clean catch or not.

You might be onto something. 

New Rule:  You must hand the ball to ref after scoring a TD.  No running to the middle of the field to spike the ball on the opposing teams logo or tossing it into the stands or throwing it between the goal posts.

And if such a rule is adopted...drop Ochocinco from your FF team. 

I like the rule as it is now. It takes a lot of the guesswork out of it for the refs, which is a Good Thing (tm) IMHO.

And, no, Pappy, if a player catches the ball in the process of going to the ground at the 1 and stretches the ball over the goal line, the play does not die there. Control still has to be maintained all the way to the ground.

Note the wording, however. Control doesn't have to be maintained AFTER that, so letting go of the ball after going to the ground is not a problem. I would NOT have had a problem with the refs ruling the catch COMPLETE in the Lions game. In fact, that's what I would have done.

Unfortunately, what counts is not the wording of the rule, but how the rule is applied in practice. And, as Mike Pereira stated, "incomplete" is the current practice.

This is the precise wording in the NFL rule book:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1
Going to 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.

----

Clearly, the letter of the rule allows for calling a play such as the one in the Lions game complete. The receiver clearly (IMHO) had control of the ball AFTER HE TOUCHES THE GROUND, which is the requirement.

It depends because If you make a football move after catching the ball then the catch is considered completed.  If you reach the ball over the goal line that could be considered a football move and the pass would be completed at that point and then as soon as the ball crosses the goal line it would be considered a TD.  I've seen it called that way before, granted that lately they have been leaning toward there's no such thing as a football move. Not saying that they necessarily would have called that play a TD if it happened that way, I'm just saying that it might have been.

So let me propose this:

Calvin Johnson catches the ball.  Stands there for one full second, and then the corner shoves him violently, causing him to fall on his butt out of bounds.  Then in the act of getting up, he places the ball on the ground deliberately.

By the rule, this should be an incomplete pass?

I'm on the other side of this because I think it actually hurts the refs.  It forces them into making bad calls.  It makes the refs bigger than the game.

The Lions got hosed plain and simple. You can over process this with the wording of this asinine rule all you want but common sense tells you that was with out a doubt a catch and a TD. Terrible rule to cost a team a game!!!!!!

Exactly.  Now that Instant Replay is here to stay, make it a judgement call by the official again, catch or no catch?  If you think he got it wrong you can challenge and it will automatically be reviewed by the booth in the last 2 minutes of a game.  Put the decision making back into the hands of the refs and then let instant replay overrule it if it's clearly the wrong call.

There is no "football move" requirement anymore. That rule was abolished before last season (IIRC).

Anyway, that's irrelevant to THIS issue, since it deals exclusively with a player catching the ball WHILE GOING TO GROUND. By definition, if a player makes a football move, he wasn't going to the ground WHILE catching the ball.

I don't understand your argument at all Pappy. The argument you present seems to support the opposite viewpoint.

As for the refs, the current rule certainly makes it easy for them: If the player has the ball under control on the ground --> COMPLETE, if not --> INCOMPLETE.

The idiocy here is that the refs, even upon review, decided that the player did not have control on the ground. That was clearly INCORRECT and, judging by former head of officiating Mike Pereira's comments, is due to the current interpretation of the rule by the refs. That interpretation (and not the rule as written and -- I'm willing to bet -- meant) is idiotic and should be changed.

Yes, I'm saying the refs don't understand the rule. I appreciate the insanity of such a claim. I still stand by it, however, and unless someone from the Competition Committee or whatever comes forward and says otherwise, I'll believe that the rule writers actually meant what they wrote (which CLEARLY isn't what the refs are judging).

I'm saying the rule IS the problem.  The refs are calling it one way while many people see it a different way BECAUSE of that part of the rule about having to maintain control after the catch.  Take that whole going to the ground garbage out of the rule and just tell the refs they have to get 2 feet down with control of the ball, if they do then it's a catch.  None of this BS about maintaining posession after the catch.  Any disputes are covered with instant replay.  How is that confusing?  You either believe he caught the pass and had 2 feet down or you didn't, I don't care whether he's hitting the ground or not.  If you think he caught it, that's how you rule it if you dont think he caught it that's how you rule it.  If the coach disagrees, let's go to the booth and they can decide whether it's a bad call or not.  If the call is CLEARLY WRONG, you overturn it, if it's NOT CLEARLY WRONG the call stands whatever was called, it's as simple as that. 

That's what instant replay is for, to overturn CLEARLY WRONG CALLS. There's plenty of judgement calls in the NFL already, why do we need to try to take the judgement of the official out of this one particular call when in reality you aren't taking the judgement of the official out of the equation you're just changing it to a decision of whether or not he had control BEFORE going to the ground like you mentioned and you end up with worse calls in some cases like yesterday's.  The call was correct according to the rule, but it doesn't make any sense the rule should be like that in the first place.  That's a needless rule in my opinion.  Get rid of that going to the ground BS.

Pappy, have you ever seen a game with a bunch of people? How often can a room come even close to agreeing on what constitutes "control" unless the player catching the ball happens to be playing for "their" team?

And that's with infinite replays from numerous angles in slow motion.

How the hell is a ref supposed to make a call that's anything but random on the field with live action from what's almost certainly not an ideal angle?

Referring everything to instant replay isn't an option. I like instant replay, but I wouldn't want it used all the freaking time.

Bottom line, I've been in so many discussions about a ball "shifting" vs the player "securing it further" vs whatever. It stinks and would be the source of many more controversies than the current rule. Just tell the refs to go with the rule AS WRITTEN, not as they currently interpret it.

Look at it another way: Had the receiver in the Lions game lost control of the ball before rolling around, would viewers really have thought "that's a catch"? Even though he may have had control of it in the air with two feet down? I don't think so.

This whole issue stems from the fact that the receiver appeared to maintain control of the ball TO THE GROUND (as per the letter of the rule), rolled over and threw/flicked the ball away. The rule doesn't state anything about "two motions" (i.e. that throwing the ball away must be part of a second motion, as compared to the falling to the ground motion). It just states you have to maintain control to the ground, which the player clearly did. Case closed.

While I think they were hosed, it doesn't say to the ground. It is after making contact to the ground. Those are different.

Correct. The "after" could be infinitely short, of course, but in this case, the ball wasn't knocked lose upon hitting the ground. Control was clearly retained AFTER "touching the ground" (as per the rule). It doesn't say the player has to come to a complete rest, must complete a second movement, must get up and hand the ball to the ref or anything like that.

Well it really doesn't matter what ANY of them think, it matters what the ref thinks.  He's the one closest to the play as it happens.  He makes a decision and if it's the wrong one then theres the replay booth to decide if he made the wrong one.  If the replay doesn't clearly show the correct call even after slowing it down and watching it from every angle we have, then whatever was called is good enough.  Officiating isn't an exact science, but that's ok as long as you don't have glaring problems and Instant replay does enough to eliminate those.  You're never going to get every last person to agree and you shouldn't try, you should only try to get the call as accurate as possible.

The refs are trained how to be in the best position and they've been doing it for years by the time they are working in the NFL.  They aren't perfect but they're they best we got.

Not everything, only when their appears to have been a mistake.  99% of the time the refs get it right or it's too close to call.  For the 1% of the time we have instant replay.  It's a good system. 

That's just talk and it's obvious from the last 2 days of talk that the rule as it is now is not perfect or there would be no talk.

But that's not what happened.  The way the rule is written (and interpreted by the NFL) the official HAD to call INCOMPLETE.  He HAD to regardless of what he thought and what just about everyone who's seen the play thought.  That's contrary to logic.  If it looks like a catch than it should be a catch and not incomplete because the rule says it has to be.  That's a stupid rule in my opinion.  You say it's being interpreted wrong, but the NFL has a rules commitee that determines how the rules should be interpreted and they said this one needs to be interpreted the way they interpreted the call on Sunday.  The NFL is not saying they got the call wrong, they are saying that's the rule.  Well in my opinion then it's a bad rule and should be changed.

This is where we disagree. There's no way I can read your (and Pereira's) interpretation of the rules into the words as written. It quite clearly DOESN'T state how long control has to be maintained after touching the ground. The refs (who aren't the ones writing the rules) seem to have interpreted this as "indefinitely", whereas I would argue the opposite ("momentarily", i.e. just to make sure the actual contact with the ground doesn't knock the ball lose -- a reasonable argument since the ball getting knocked out would be an indication that the player didn't have a firm grasp (i.e. control) in the first place). I expect the League to issue a clarification (not rule change) on the matter in the coming off-season, although it will have to be done gracefully, since the League would never criticize the officials, regardless of how much the League / competition committee might disagree with them.

As for the replay system, yes, I agree it's a good system, but if you think the refs "get it right" 99% of the time, you're delusional. There are uncalled fouls on many, if not most, plays and most every game has a fumble/pass/runner-down situation where the refs got it wrong (which we can only tell thanks to the wonder of slow motion replays, esp. on our own DVRs) -- and the majority of those are never subjected to review. The last thing the game needs is a rule the refs have no chance of calling accurately. There's a reason the trend (quite deliberately) is in the opposite direction, i.e. removing judgement calls.

(Just out of curiosity... did you learn to type on a typewriter?)

It's not my interpretation, it's the NFL's.  The rules are agreed to by a representative from every team.  Every team is aware of what the rule is. It was ruled as it is suppose to be ruled.  You may not agree with it, but that is the rule as it currently stands.  I haven't heard anyone associated with the NFL say that it was ruled incorrectly and I'm talking refs, coaches, analysts and players.  They are ALL saying it was ruled correctly according to the rules.

I think that's pretty subjective, but I'm not really talking about fouls, I'm talking where they have to actually make a call on a play. See below.

Out of how many times?  Hundreds?  They make decisions about complete, incomplete, fumble, no fumble, down, not down, in bounds, out of bounds, spot of the ball on every snap and usually more than 1.  So the fact they get it wrong once or twice a game is really not that big of a percentage, about 1%.  Maybe it's 2%.  Still that's a very small number, well within reason.  The coaches have the right to challenge those plays they wish as long as they have challenges left.  Few are used.  Why?  Because they know the chances the officials got it CLEARLY wrong are small.  Maybe they will get it overturned and maybe they won't and they'll lose a timeout.  How many are challenged and then upheld?

I agree.  That doesn't mean the game is better for it because you get cases like last Sunday where a judgement call was needed in my humble opinion.  All this trend does is try to deflect any negativity away from the ref.  Make them less accountable.  Well personally I think instant replay and the challenge system handles that just fine, you don't need to put in any extra rules.

Yes, in 1978.  Why?

Very few people who DIDN'T learn to type on a typewriter use two spaces after a period (introduced because typewriters used mono-spaced fonts). There are exceptions, of course, since some publications still use the double-space, but with the advent of proportional fonts the practice has pretty much disappeared.

Interesting.  I do that without thinking about it.

There are actually quite a few posters on this board who use English spacing, which is quite odd given the rarity of it today and the (supposed) age of most of those posters. Dave, mecandozilla, Spider-Dan, Tenshot... just to name a few. And then there are the hordes of inconsistent usage folks like Hoodie and Defense. Sure, the typical age of the double-spacers is probably significantly above average for TDMMC, but there are a lot of young (<40 in this context) people as well.

Yeah.  I learned on a typewriter, too.  And my monitor is covered up with Liquid Paper from all the corrections I make.   :)

I ALWAYS put 2 spaces after a period.  I was taught this was proper typing in high school.  Now its habit, and I doubt I'll ever stop.  In fact, I have corrected other people who don't do this...

[/hijack]

Continuing the hijack...

Okay, this is weird. I cannot believe I haven't noticed the double-spacing going on here before. I'm going to guess that the site updates a few days ago also included an update to the forum software that started rendering double-spaces (a double space in HTML is rendered as a single space unless one of the spaces is changed to a non-breaking space).

Regardless...

Brian, I can't believe you correct other people who don't double-space! There's nothing RIGHT about putting two spaces after a period. It was originally introduced in "style guides" as a "hack" when typewriters started to gain widespread use and promptly removed again once typewriters gained proportional fonts (the very first coming in the 40s, but general usage somewhat later). Typesetters with access to proportional fonts NEVER used the double-space.

Apparently, typing teachers stuck in the past, unable to get past what they themselves learned when they were young (and used mono-spaced typewriters), continued to teach this anachronism to their students. Sigh...