The Coleman non-touchdown

[Billz4ever]

32 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

There were 3 full feet down before ball came out though.

 

Where it says "now two feet down" he doesn't have control of the ball. It's simply pinned against his thigh with his forearm.

 

He never established possession.

[HansLanda]

Just now, NoSaint said:

if just following the rules and logic, a lot of it makes sense. 
 

if trying to extrapolate to every variation of a guy catching a ball can go down and how another guy watching that in real time will call it and thinking it will extrapolate across every play consistently - much more futile. 
 

 

 

I think the call was probably right on the Coleman play, but in general "what is a catch?" is way more complicated than it needs to be in the NFL. 

[SectionC3]

54 minutes ago, Doc said:

Is there an angle from the other side?  I can't see the ball moving in the one provided.

I was looking right at it in the stadium and it looked like he pinned the ball against his groin. I thought the ball was moving when I watched it live.  

[Jerboski]

If that is kelce that’s a TD no doubt about it 

[folz]

We really need to see both the front and back angles and compare the two. Did he never have possession (was it bobbling the whole time)? If he did initially get possession, was the initial left foot still on the ground when he gained possession? If possession was secured, and the left foot was down, did the ball start to bobble on his second step, or not until after that step? If the initial left foot is down, and he didn't bobble until after the second step, then wouldn't that be two steps down, and then the turn up field is a football move, as he crosses the plane. Anything after that shouldn't matter. Now if the first foot wasn't down, then it's an end zone catch and he has to "complete the catch," as it were, i.e. maintain possession with two feet in the end zone without going out of bounds. It's just hard to determine possession and that first foot from the end zone camera angle.

 

Also, I'm actually still questioning whether that second/third step near the sideline was actually out of bounds. The ruling on the field was a TD, so there had to be clear enough evidence to overturn the call. Was it clear that his foot was out? I'm not so sure, or at least haven't seen a clear enough shot to show he was clearly out. If that foot is in bounds, well then, he got a fourth foot down after that and regained possession before his body landed out of bounds (and  then held on to it "through the ground"). If that foot was in, it is an unquestionable TD.

 

But I agree with a few others that back in the day...that's a TD all day, every day. It may not be with today's NFL rules, but that only shows that the current NFL rules suck.

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, HansLanda said:

 

I think the call was probably right on the Coleman play, but in general "what is a catch?" is way more complicated than it needs to be in the NFL. 

I’ll die on the hill that if you step back, don’t try to find plays that are exceptions (ie bad calls) and don’t lean on announcers explaining things poorly (sometimes incorrectly)… it’s not nearly as confusing as most portray 

 

a lot of my least favorite recurring debates for fans are as simple as “Troy aikman only marginally understands a rule and is a poor communicator on top of that” creating  millions of confused viewers through the years

[MJS]

28 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

They just need to take away the loophole.  A runner who touches the white line cannot fumble the ball as its a touchdown.  A wideout who has two feet down and has completed control should now be a runner, as such no further action should matter. 

He didn't have possession or two feet down when he entered the end zone, so none of that applies.

[DrDawkinstein]

51 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

There were 3 full feet down before ball came out though.

 

 

He never had possession. Not with the first foot down, or second, or third. The ball was always moving down his body and sliding out of his arm. He never possessed it for it to be a TD by crossing the plane, regardless of feet down.

[Mikie2times]

53 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

There were 3 full feet down before ball came out though.

 

He didn’t catch the ball? Its moving the whole time.

[The Firebaugh Kid]

1 hour ago, billieve420 said:

Just dumb rule overall. I don’t care if the ball moves as long as it doesn’t hit the ground. 

I totally agree they need to get rid of that little nuance. if the ball doesn’t hit the ground it’s a catch. End 

[DrDawkinstein]

18 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I’ll die on the hill that if you step back, don’t try to find plays that are exceptions (ie bad calls) and don’t lean on announcers explaining things poorly (sometimes incorrectly)… it’s not nearly as confusing as most portray 

 

a lot of my least favorite recurring debates for fans are as simple as “Troy aikman only marginally understands a rule and is a poor communicator on top of that” creating  millions of confused viewers through the years

 

And the announcers probably do understand the rule, but it gives them something to talk about as they need to fill 3 hours, AND acting like its tough to tell lets them cover their butts for when they make the wrong call while covering the game. Plus, the old players like Aikman and the like love complaining about new/modern rules. The ol "back in my day" and "yelling at clouds".

9 minutes ago, The Firebaugh Kid said:

I totally agree they need to get rid of that little nuance. if the ball doesn’t hit the ground it’s a catch. End 

 

Ok, but this hit the ground after sliding down his body because he never possessed it. So incomplete according to your rule too.

 

edit: apologies, it never hit the ground, he did end up gathering possession but it was well after he was out of bounds.

Edited October 21 by DrDawkinstein

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I was looking right at it in the stadium and it looked like he pinned the ball against his groin. I thought the ball was moving when I watched it live.  

 

On the replay it looks like he pins it after he crosses the plane and the defender dislodges it.

[The Firebaugh Kid]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

And the announcers probably do understand the rule, but it gives them something to talk about as they need to fill 3 hours, AND acting like its tough to tell lets them cover their butts for when they make the wrong call while covering the game. Plus, the old players like Aikman and the like love complaining about new/modern rules. The ol "back in my day" and "yelling at clouds".

 

Ok, but this hit the ground after sliding down his body because he never possessed it. So incomplete according to your rule too.

I guess we disagree on what possession is. He had the ball, I don’t know what else you want. It only moved after he got the 2 feet down. Sometimes because the way your body is moving you have to adjust the ball in order to maintain it in your hands. 

[Boatdrinks]

19 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

Where it says "now two feet down" he doesn't have control of the ball. It's simply pinned against his thigh with his forearm.

 

He never established possession.

He already carried the ball

over the goal line. It moved after. He doesn’t have to have it in his hands. What if it was pressed against his helmet a la Tyree ? It’s still a Touchdown 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, The Firebaugh Kid said:

I guess we disagree on what possession is. He had the ball, I don’t know what else you want. It only moved after he got the 2 feet down. Sometimes because the way your body is moving you have to adjust the ball in order to maintain it in your hands. 

 

No it didnt. It was moving the whole time. He never secured it. He wasnt adjusting the ball in a possessed cradle, he was trying to pin it as it was sliding down his arm/body.

 

I think if there was any other angle of this, it would clear it up for everyone.

[Billz4ever]

4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

He already carried the ball

over the goal line. It moved after. He doesn’t have to have it in his hands. What if it was pressed against his helmet a la Tyree ? It’s still a Touchdown 

The ball moving the entire time and sliding down his leg isn't control.

 

Tyree came down in the field of play and still had possession.  Keon never actually established possession and then went out of bounds.

Edited October 21 by Billz4ever

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

The ball moving the entire time and dribbling down his leg isn't control.

 

Tyree came down in the field of play and still had possession.  Keon never actually established possession and then went out of bounds.

Debatable. Can’t really see the laces move until plane is broken … it was called a TD on the field. Looks inconclusive at best to me. If it was called no catch I don’t think it would be overturned either. 

[DrDawkinstein]

I think if he tried just making the catch and happy to get to the 1 yard line, he probably gets a catch. I think his trying to turn up field as he was catching the ball really worked against him and ended up making him bobble it. Never really caught it solidly.

 

I dont blame him at all for trying to get into the endzone, just sayin, that seems to be what happened.

[Billz4ever]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

Debatable. Can’t really see the laces move until plane is broken … it was called a TD on the field. Looks inconclusive at best to me. If it was called no catch I don’t think it would be overturned either. 

I knew as soon as I saw the first replay that it was coming back.  I knew they were going to rule he never actually possessed the ball, which I agree with.

[Einstein]

16 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

He never had possession. Not with the first foot down, or second, or third. The ball was always moving down his body and sliding out of his arm.

 

I don’t see the ball moving at all until the 3rd step. It looks pinned to his forearm.