The catch in the Giants Patriots game

[dolphins4life]

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.

[Pappy13]

Because otherwise the Patriots would have lost. 

[dolphins4life]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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)

   

[Tenshot13]

Ya, it was incomplete.

[Brian Fein]

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[Brian Fein]

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. 

[Phishfan]

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.

[dolphins4life]

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

[Brian Fein]

here you go...

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

[Phishfan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[dolphins4life]

Is this sarcasm, Spider?

[Brian Fein]

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.