MPT Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 34 minutes ago, mattynh said: You have to decide the moment he established possession. Two feet, football move etc. it was close. Close goes to call on field. It was not worth the challenge imo. You don't need to make a football move if you're already in the end zone. Otherwise toe tap catches in the end zone would always be incomplete.
fergie's ire Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 Though the "football move" going to the ground rules may be stupid, they are there. So, if a player is falling (or diving) to make a catch...he has to possess the ball through the ground for it to be a catch. So, if the ball had popped out when Brown hit the ground, it would not have been a catch. Therefore, though he had control of it....and two feet touched...he didn't officially possess the ball until he hit the ground...which happened outside the end zone. That's why the announcers were talking about going to the ground and possession.
nkreed Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 25 minutes ago, chaccof said: But after he gained position and had both feed in bounds, the ball still broke the plane of the goal line and I thought that as soon as the ball breaks the plane the play ends? Is the plane the front edge of the goal line or the back edge? I always thought it was the front end, that the goal line is actually inside the end zone. As noted above, I think the drunken ref play of the game theory is as good as any... You are 100% correct of the leading edge (the one closest to the 1 yd line) is the determining factor. I was just trying to think like a ref in that situation. I wanted to try and figure out a reason for him calling Brown down at the one.
HardyBoy Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Motor26 said: Lol I remember seeing that and the guy put a hand that barely grazed Milanos back he just ended up whiffing on the tackle. That one I could at least see as being because it was a bad angle for ref and Milano sold it well. The Brown play is the most confusing thing I've seen since the "int" last week. He caught the ball, both feet down, ball across the plane...done. Fine, you want to say he has to make a football move or go through the ground, great, but where the ball was the moment the two feet, or knee or whatever hit when the ball is no longer out of control is where the ball should be. By this logic, a receiver catching the ball in the back of the endzone and falling out of bounds would be considered and incomplete pass. Genuinely, this was the worst call I've ever seen, probably worse than the "int" from last week. For crying out loud, this gets rid of all toe tapping catches as incomplete passes because they're out of bounds at time of the football move/going through the ground. Riveron seriously needs to go. Edited October 5, 2020 by HardyBoy 2
TroutDog Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 I was young when I first heard, “What is a catch?” It all seemed so simple to me and yet the NFL has convoluted it to a ridiculous degree. Let the fu***** play.
MPT Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 6 minutes ago, fergie's ire said: Though the "football move" going to the ground rules may be stupid, they are there. So, if a player is falling (or diving) to make a catch...he has to possess the ball through the ground for it to be a catch. So, if the ball had popped out when Brown hit the ground, it would not have been a catch. Therefore, though he had control of it....and two feet touched...he didn't officially possess the ball until he hit the ground...which happened outside the end zone. That's why the announcers were talking about going to the ground and possession. If that were the case, then any catch made with two feet in the end zone where the player falls out of bounds would be ruled incomplete because the player lands out of bounds. As soon as there is possession with the ball in the end zone, it's a touchdown-- provided the player maintains control through the ground. If he had dropped the ball as he landed, they could call it incomplete. But he didn't. He had two feet, a knee, and the ball in the end zone at the time of possession. Anything that happens after that is meaningless as long as he maintains control. 1 1
Livinginthepast Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 It was a clear TD on the first look and on the replay which of course means that it wasn't called a TD on the first look by the goal line official and then not not called a TD by the replay refs in NYC because its the NFL! The Carr fumble was another mystifying call. Clearly it was a fumble. I think the officials tried to squirm out of that one by saying they had blown the whistle before the fumble which if true is just another incompetent call. Officials also missed a blow to the head on Josh on that play where he hurt his shoulder. Just another day of mediocrity in NFL officiating. Its nice that this years Bills can overcome it.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Southern Bills Fan said: He clearly had possession with the ball breaking the plane of the goal line. No. I can’t explain. 19 minutes ago, fergie's ire said: Though the "football move" going to the ground rules may be stupid, they are there. So, if a player is falling (or diving) to make a catch...he has to possess the ball through the ground for it to be a catch. So, if the ball had popped out when Brown hit the ground, it would not have been a catch. Therefore, though he had control of it....and two feet touched...he didn't officially possess the ball until he hit the ground...which happened outside the end zone. That's why the announcers were talking about going to the ground and possession. If that was true, how would any of the toe-tap catches in the corner of the EZ count? 4 minutes ago, MPT said: If that were the case, then any catch made with two feet in the end zone where the player falls out of bounds would be ruled incomplete because the player lands out of bounds. As soon as there is possession with the ball in the end zone, it's a touchdown-- provided the player maintains control through the ground. If he had dropped the ball as he landed, they could call it incomplete. But he didn't. He had two feet, a knee, and the ball in the end zone at the time of possession. Anything that happens after that is meaningless as long as he maintains control. Hopefully the Bills are querying the league about all these calls because they are bogus.
Doc Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 It was a clear touchdown. The explanation they gave was some made up bull####. And Carr fumbled the ball. 2
BobChalmers Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 I actually didn't have a huge problem with it - in slow motion you can see the ball coming loose a bit in his hands until after he's back short of the goal line. It was close, but it was reasonable. NOTHING compared to Josh Allen's interception* last week.
MJS Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, BobChalmers said: I actually didn't have a huge problem with it - in slow motion you can see the ball coming loose a bit in his hands until after he's back short of the goal line. It was close, but it was reasonable. NOTHING compared to Josh Allen's interception* last week. I thought it was pretty clear the ball was still in the end zone as he got two hands on the ball and still when he had two feet down, but whatever. It WAS close and I knew we would punch it in regardless. But there's a problem when these things are reviewed and literally everyone watching it, including the network rules experts, disagree with the outcome. That has happened many times this season and that is a bad look for the NFL.
NoSaint Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 1 hour ago, BigdaddyinOrlando said: I can’t, looked good to me, two feet in and down possession across the line you have to complete the catch and when going to the ground that includes landing. we go through a few of these around the league annually and it’s always the same answer. 56 minutes ago, MPT said: You don't need to make a football move if you're already in the end zone. Otherwise toe tap catches in the end zone would always be incomplete. but you have to complete the fall. If you bobble going to the ground on the toe tap it’s incomplete. In this case falling back into the field of play he didn’t complete it until out of the end zone. It’s a tough spot and was a close call. 1
NFLBighits Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 He established control as his knee touched the goal line= touchdown!
Dr.Sack Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 Right knee down bottom hand had total control on white line = TD.
JimBob2232 Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 i too thought it was a touchdown. only thing i can think of is that the angle of the camera wasnt straight down the goal line - so couldnt definitively state it was over. I still think it was...
MPT Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, NoSaint said: you have to complete the catch and when going to the ground that includes landing. we go through a few of these around the league annually and it’s always the same answer. but you have to complete the fall. If you bobble going to the ground on the toe tap it’s incomplete. In this case falling back into the field of play he didn’t complete it until out of the end zone. It’s a tough spot and was a close call. So every toe tap catch in the end zone is actually an incomplete pass because they didn't complete the catch until they fell out of bounds? That's not how it works, but that's how they treated this play. The rules aren't as convoluted as people make them out to be; referees just screw them up sometimes. And sometimes, when a team is really lucky, they screw them up three weeks in a row.
Coach Tuesday Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 Better question is why even have replay? 1
NoSaint Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, MPT said: So every toe tap catch in the end zone is actually an incomplete pass because they didn't complete the catch until they fell out of bounds? That's not how it works, but that's how they treated this play. The rules aren't as convoluted as people make them out to be; referees just screw them up sometimes. And sometimes, when a team is really lucky, they screw them up three weeks in a row. you accept a bunch of rules being different at the goal line than the sideline
MPT Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: Better question is why even have replay? I wonder that too. If an official's call on the field is so immutable that even clear video replay can't correct it, what's even the point? 1
Kelly the Dog Posted October 5, 2020 Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, NoSaint said: you accept a bunch of rules being different at the goal line than the sideline Very true. There seems to be a bunch of contradictory rules in the NFL. What happens if a WR has two feet in bounds in the end zones and possession but the ball is OB and may not be over the end zone? Edited October 5, 2020 by Kelly the Dog
Recommended Posts