Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 it was a catch, just because he wasn't holding it on his chest doesn't mean he didn't control it, refs are tools
CSBill Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 and just made the same call on the Houston Indy game, he had the ball all the way out of bounce, then loses it, and yet its incomplete
MadOTC Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 After what I just saw on that Andre Johnson catch challenge, I have no idea what a catch is anymore. What is up with this crazy week in the NFL??
Reed83HOF Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Same exact play just happened in the Texans - Colts game. Johnson had a catch when he went out of bounds. He was sliding on his back with a player pulling at it; tried to adjust and lost it. Well after he was down and out of bounds - was a catch. The NFL has too many rules
BringBackFergy Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Catch/NoCatch Alert: Houston vs. Colts game - Andre Johnson ruled catch on field. Challenge by Pagano. Overruled. Refs said he lost control of the ball when he was on the ground. The ball was swiped out by the CB after he fell out of bounds. Collingsworth hit it spot on by saying "when does the play end?" Very similar to Goodwin. LOL...three of us just posted the same thing. Good job fellas. We should be in the refs booth.
Alphadawg7 Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Wow I must have watched a different video than you 20+ times then. No offense, but if think for one second you and everyone in this board would not be freaking out and proclaiming it was not a catch if that was a chiefs player and it was ruled a catch then you are either lying or delusional. The ball is shifting to different parts of his body through the play and does not demonstrate full control. Had it been ruled a catch on the field, then maybe it stands. But no way was there anything conclusive on that close call to overturn that call IMO and no matter how I wanted it to be a catch did I think it was conclusive.
Wazzu Bill Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Anyone else secretly hoping refs ruled Johnson's grab a completion in order to supply more rant material?
NoSaint Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 After what I just saw on that Andre Johnson catch challenge, I have no idea what a catch is anymore. What is up with this crazy week in the NFL?? Do you really have no idea what a catch is, or is it simply that you aren't sure in a handful of specific and complex examples you aren't sure quite where the line falls? Was it florio that coined the phrase "I don't know what a catch is?" I remember someone did after the Calvin Johnson incident and now everybody uses it on close calls since it seems like it was a catch, just because he wasn't holding it on his chest doesn't mean he didn't control it, refs are tools I don't think your getting the fine points of the debate. Pinning to his helmet had nothing to do with it (besides being more susceptible to a swat from the defender)
billsfan714 Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Seems like the league wants to have 2 separate rules. Imagine a quick hitting play with the receiver stretching for the goalline with a knee touching the turf, and the ball is short of the goalline but the receiver has not gone all the way down the ground. They would mark it where his knee touched and thats where the ball would be spotted. But in reality he would not have completed the catch until he went all the way to the ground. This rule is getting more messed up each season.
thebug Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 No offense, but if think for one second you and everyone in this board would not be freaking out and proclaiming it was not a catch if that was a chiefs player and it was ruled a catch then you are either lying or delusional. The ball is shifting to different parts of his body through the play and does not demonstrate full control. Had it been ruled a catch on the field, then maybe it stands. But no way was there anything conclusive on that close call to overturn that call IMO and no matter how I wanted it to be a catch did I think it was conclusive. Well, we are talking about 2 different things then. You are saying the refs got the challenge call correct, which they likely did, only because it was called incomplete on the field (after being called complete and down by contact by one ref). I am saying it was a catch.
Reed83HOF Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 I don't think your getting the fine points of the debate. Pinning to his helmet had nothing to do with it (besides being more susceptible to a swat from the defender) There should be no fine points or any debate - use your eyes. Johnson had a catch a few minutes ago; as did Goodwin. Trying to clarify rules too much honestly ruins the game by complicating too much... Well, we are talking about 2 different things then. You are saying the refs got the challenge call correct, which they likely did, only because it was called incomplete on the field (after being called complete and down by contact by one ref). I am saying it was a catch. It was a catch. Just like Johnson's....
NoSaint Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 There should be no fine points or any debate - use your eyes. Johnson had a catch a few minutes ago; as did Goodwin. Trying to clarify rules too much honestly ruins the game by complicating too much... It was a catch. Just like Johnson's.... So you'd prefer the refs simply use the eye test, no definition needed?
Reed83HOF Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 So you'd prefer the refs simply use the eye test, no definition needed? You almost have to, the rule book is ridiculous nowadays. There are missed calls all over the place. The more you try to define something the harder it is to do it consistently (see the Tuck rule). You can easily use the eye test to see if it was a catch or not. Dungy said it was a catch, Collinsworth said when does a play end? It is true... A poster above mentioned how the rules apply differently at the goal line - it honestly is stupid. Back in the day 2 feet in bounds, control of the ball no trapping (in the turf), ground can't cause a fumble once you are on the ground and touched play is over. The game didn't change that you need ot further and further define every rule. It leads to way too many missed calls, inconsistency, etc... The roughing the passer call against the Chiefs was a bullsh*t call too....
NoSaint Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) You almost have to, the rule book is ridiculous nowadays. There are missed calls all over the place. The more you try to define something the harder it is to do it consistently (see the Tuck rule). You can easily use the eye test to see if it was a catch or not. Dungy said it was a catch, Collinsworth said when does a play end? It is true... A poster above mentioned how the rules apply differently at the goal line - it honestly is stupid. Back in the day 2 feet in bounds, control of the ball no trapping (in the turf), ground can't cause a fumble once you are on the ground and touched play is over. The game didn't change that you need ot further and further define every rule. It leads to way too many missed calls, inconsistency, etc... The roughing the passer call against the Chiefs was a bullsh*t call too.... I guess that flows straight into - how do you make sure two guys generally rule the same and it's not a random mish mash of opinions that vary widely? Then the additional side question of - has officiating actually gotten more inconsistent or worse with thine or are we just watching much closer with far more resources to dissect it? I know the bad calls I saw in 1995 I didnt get to break down in slo mo 29 times, compare to a library of other similar plays over the last decade on demand and discuss with hundreds of other fans Edited November 4, 2013 by NoSaint
Dean Cain Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 I guess that flows straight into - how do you make sure two guys generally rule the same and it's not a random mish mash of opinions that vary widely? Here's how they do it New Orleans Saint fan #1. If it's a team that is bottom 5 in terms of fanbase they don't get the call. Top 5 teams do. Mid teams it's a flip of the coin.
Reed83HOF Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 I guess that flows straight into - how do you make sure two guys generally rule the same and it's not a random mish mash of opinions that vary widely? Then the additional side question of - has officiating actually gotten more inconsistent or worse with thine or are we just watching much closer with far more resources to dissect it? I know the bad calls I saw in 1995 I didnt get to break down in slo mo 29 times, compare to a library of other similar plays over the last decade on demand and discuss with hundreds of other fans Like they rule the same now Now that is a good side question. I recall the Ref's making a ton of bad calls for as long as I can recall; it happens in every sport. It isn't like the ref's are blind is something new. The more you try to use words to describe what you want to see or what is and isn't - the more confusing you make it. You increase the opportunities for bad interpretation, inconsistency, etc. You will never be able to accurately describe every instance of what is and what isn't....
KOKBILLS Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Yeah, that was a terrible call. Personally I think the call was probably right based on the rule...It's the rule that is terrible IMHO...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Well, we are talking about 2 different things then. You are saying the refs got the challenge call correct, which they likely did, only because it was called incomplete on the field (after being called complete and down by contact by one ref). I am saying it was a catch. I'm saying refs got it right and that the correct call was no catch because it was ruled incomplete, ball had movement though the catch, and there was nothing shown that showed it was a conclusive catch.
Mango Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 He had control when he hit the ground and at that point he was down by contract: play over. What happened after the play was over shouldn't matter. That was a catch. This!! The play is over when his knee is down and touched. He had possession at that point. Everything after that is irrelevant.
Recommended Posts