The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Why was that ruled incomplete?

It seemed similar to the play in the Lions-Bears game a couple weeks ago that was ruled a touchdown.

Because otherwise the Patriots would have lost.  >:D

I was asking a real question, but that was kinda funny.

Also, could somebody move this to Around the NFL?  That is where I meant to post it.

BTW it was initially called incomplete, then the refs conferred called it a TD than it was reviewed and called incomplete.  My speculation is that the ref was thought it was incomplete (the original call) but wasn't 100% so they ruled it a TD so it would be automatically reviewed.  Scoring plays are always reviewable -- incomplete passes are not.

Before the ref announced the reversal.  The CBS "rules expert" said that it was unquestionably incomplete.  Not close, not could go either way but clearly incomplete. 

He never maintained control. 

There are close calls worth debating, anyone debating this one is just trying to stir up crap or knows nothing about football (or both)

   

Ya, it was incomplete.

Then why wasn't AJ Green's fumble at the end of the Bengals Texans game ruled incomplete?  It was almost the exact same play except Green's wasn't in the end zone (which makes it worse).

The ruling of that play as an incomplete pass implies that there is an element of time required to possess the ball for it to be considered a catch.  If he had caught the ball, had possession and two feet down in the end zone, it should be a TD.  The play is over the moment the ball is possessed "across the plane" of the goal line.  If he stood there for 3 seconds and then a guy smacked it out of his hands, how can you rule that incomplete?  So, where's the time threshold?  1 second?  2 seconds? 

There needs to be consistency.  It used to be 2 feet and possession was enough.  According to this game, it no longer is.

The question is what is possession.  There most definitely needs to be something that shows possession and just having it long enough to put two feet on the ground has never demonstrated possession. Every official, talking head, and most fans agree that Beckham did not have a catch. If you want to argue it you are in the minority but you seem to take that stance a lot (DFS comes to mind as another very recent example) so I'm not sure if it is for discussion or actual belief. I wish he would have caught it as much as every Miami fan in the world but it was incomplete by all standards written in the rule book.

possession is undisputable control over the ball.  They want to use the "control through the act of going to the ground" - that's fine, but it doesn't seem to apply to a guy standing there and having the ball knocked out of his hands.

Honestly, go watch the AJ Green play and tell me what the difference is.  His was ruled catch and fumble. 

I did not watch last night's game and it if wasn't in the end zone I bet it will be tough to find. If you want to put forth the evidence, fine I'll review it. I've posted the article on the rule already so go up and read the ruling yourself. The words football move have been replaced but the idea is still the same in the rule, they need to be able to establish that they can protect the ball. It did not happen in this instance.

This league is already stacked for the offense in order to appease the fantasy generation. Let's not give them any more credit for catchers they are not making.

Oh I see, it must have been not properly secured before the strip, unlike the Lions-Bears play.

here you go...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-instant-replay/0ap3000000581985/Instant-Replay-Did-AJ-Green-fumble

Thanks for the link. I myself have a hard time differentiating the differences except for one thing I notice. Green's play was caused by a second defender. In Beckham's case the initial contact in the bang-bang play causes it to come loose rather than a second contact. Is that the officials reasoning, I don't know. What I do know is that this will never be called consistently and I'm sure there are thousands of other examples we can find going both ways.

Brian, the incompletion in the Giants game was totally obvious and indisputable and if you disagree, well, you're just trolling or being a homer or completely clueless.

I have this on good authority from an unbiased source (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=22232.msg300185#msg300185).

Is this sarcasm, Spider?

I am not trolling - I have a problem with the NFL's subjective definition of what defines a catch, ever since Calvin Johnson made an obvious game winning TD catch but used the ball to help himself up and the TD was taken away.  In my opinion, its easy to see if a guy caught a ball or not, and Beckham absolutely caught the ball.  He had two hands on it, controlled it for a second, and was standing in the end zone.  To say he didn't is plum wrong.  But by the NFL definition, because he didn't do a dance before having it knocked out of his hands, they say he didn't catch it? 

That's my problem with this.  I just don't think its fair.

^^^^

Fairness doesn't always apply in rules, the question I was asking is, was it the correct call?

Asking the same question repeatedly is not changing the answer. Pretty much all parties say the call was made as the rule is written. That should end the discussion of that particular question.

So no touchdown, correct call.

Now about the clock management, I will have to check the play-by-play summary.

More on that later.

It was the right call. And the rule is pretty simple now. Have to have control of the ball when going to the ground. Not that hard to understand.

Do I like the rule, no. But it is easy to understand

What if the player never "goes to the ground" (gets tackled)?

Ultimately, I agree with the call and said so as I watched it live.

But I think it's silly to say that it's obviously an incompletion and to say otherwise is trolling.

Without looking the rule up, I'm pretty sure it says "in the process of going to the ground". Obviously, if the refs judge that a player is i"n the process of going to the ground", then losing the ball for any reason before that makes it an incomplete catch.

They have to secure the football, that ball was never secured

Two different issues:

1) If you think that under the current rules that was a TD than you don't know football.

2) If you agree that under the current rules that wasn't a touch down, but think the rules ought to be changed so it would be a TD.  Then you are advocating for rule changes that are going to make the game even more offense friendly. Is that what you want?  Most football fans hold the view that the game has already shift too much in favor of the offense and the defense doesn't have a fair chance.  But there are some football fans that do like higher scoring games and would like to see it continue.

I just think it undermines the spirit of the game if a defender can come 5 seconds later and knock the ball out of his hands and they act as if he didn't catch the ball.  There is no time element defined in the rule book of HOW LONG the player must possess the ball.  The term "Secured" is relative since Odell Beckham could consider that two hands firmly on the ball = "secured"

So if that had been in the field of play you would have ruled it a fumble and a free ball that the could have been recovered by the defense instead of incomplete?  

If that is the case might as well just treat all forward passes under the same live ball rules as a lateral -- would make for a very exciting game.  

Exaggeration is not going to help your case at all.

One of Brian's main points is that when that did happen in the field of play (with AJ Green), it WAS ruled a fumble that was recovered by the defense.

Isn't the subjective part of the rule "the receiver must make a football move"???

They got rid of the "football move" language a couple years ago because no one ever defined what a "football move" is.

From the link I posted in the other thread:

The NFL's rules state that a player has to complete the catch through the moment he "becomes a runner," which is defined as the moment he "is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact." This wording is new this year, replacing the dreaded "football move" language that previously existed.

They are talking about it right now on FOX. 

They brought up the Tate play and they agreed that that should have been an interception.