The Coleman non-touchdown

[CircleTheWagons99]

The call was right in the end but PI should have been called from the start. 

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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

 

It goes from his shoulder to his crotch in that little time, it isnt pinned to anything.

 

Dont get me wrong, I wish it were a TD. I think the call on the field should have stood. But I understand why they overturned it.

 

Lesson for the kid because he didnt need to turn up field, which is the torquing that caused the ball to come out. Had he just stayed facing back and fallen backwards, he probably catches it, secures it, and crosses the plane. Oh well.

 

 

Edited October 21 by DrDawkinstein

[Billz4ever]

4 minutes ago, CircleTheWagons99 said:

The call was right in the end but PI should have been called from the start. 

Yeah, I said PI as it happened.  

5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

It goes from his shoulder to his crotch in that little time, it isnt pinned to anything.

 

Dont get me wrong, I wish it were a TD. I think the call on the field should have stood. But I understand why they overturned it.

 

Lesson for the kid because he didnt need to turn up field, which is the torquing that caused the ball to come out. Had he just stayed facing back and fallen backwards, he probably catches it, secures it, and crosses the plane. Oh well.

 

 

If this play is getting this much attention now, could you imagine if it was actually outcome impacting? OMG 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

But he DID have control when crossing the plane.

The ball didn’t move until after he was in the endzone.

You are missing the point. He needs to complete the catch. He didn't.  Ten posters have already explained it.  

 

Just like last week when Rapp dislodged the ball in the endzone. The WR caught the ball had feet down but didn't finish the catch because Rapp knocked it out. 

[Talley56]

2 hours ago, QB Bills said:

You have to have control when crossing the plane. He didn't. You don't have to like the rule but it was called correctly.

 

I'm pretty sure if the same thing happened with the Titans and they called it a TD, the same people here would be saying it shouldn't count.

Yeah, gotta be honest, the second I saw the replay I thought I immediately thought it was going to get overturned.  Seemed like it was pretty much clear as day that he was still juggling it as he stepped out and never had control in bounds.

[djp14150]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

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

 

 

the issue in this replay…. The ball moves before the third foot is down which means possession isn’t there. The other piece of this is that foot might have bern out of bounds

[hondo in seattle]

I played a lot of sandlot football when I was a kid.  We applied common sense when determining catches.  I think we did a better job as kids than the NFL does with its professional referees and hefty rule book.  

[Chicagobills]

Pretty clear no catch imo based on the rule

[Einstein]

55 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 I think the call on the field should have stood.

 

I guess we agree after all!

[dma0034]

Ball was moving before the third step. Pretty clear no call. Unfortunate that it wasn't one inch closer inside or it would have been a TD. If Coleman didn't stumble on the quick slant he probably scores too

[Blazman11]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

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

 

 

Thanks for posting this.  Watching the game at a bar today and they showed this replay angle multiple times but on those tv's from the distance I was at, the ball didn't look like it moved but a hair.  Here it's clear that at one brief point he didn't have any hands on the ball.  NFL got this one right.  Still a great effort though.

[DCOrange]

The simple way to think of it is that he originally has the ball sort of pinned to his stomach with his right wrist and then solidifies control with his left hand. By rule, the NFL would say he didn't have possession of the ball until he began holding it with his left hand. After that point, he got 1 or 0 feet in bounds. Therefore, not a catch.

Edited October 21 by DCOrange

[TheWeatherMan]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

He didn't have two feet down before he entered the end zone, though.

Wrong

[PaoloBillsFanFromItaly]

Correct call

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, Einstein said:

I agree that it’s technically not a catch if it happens in the normal field of play.

 

But I thought as soon as the ball crosses the goal line, it’s play over? Am I wrong on this?

 

 

It's one of the biggest inconsistencies in the NFL playbook IMO. If you are a "runner" at the point you break the plane with possession it's a touchdown. If you are still considered as being in the process of a catch at the point you break the plane it is not a touchdown until you have completed the catch. 

 

I don't know how you fix it because if you go the other other way and say a player who crosses the plane while in the process of making a catch is in once he breaks the plane then you have an inconsistency with a player making a catch in the endzone who isn't credited with the catch, and thereby the touchdown, until he has completed all elements of the process. 

 

Personally, the bit of the rule they have gone way over the top with that played into Keon's play not being a TD last night is the "control" part of establishing possession. They are obsessed with "is the ball still moving" and in my view Keon caught the ball while his left foot was down, then got his right foot down and then the left came down again out of bounds. The fact that the ball was still moving when his initial left foot was in contact with the ground - so what? He had it, he never lost it, both feet were in with Keon having the ball. Don't get me wrong the officials called it right by the current rules and interpretation. I knew from the first replay it was not gonna count. But I think they need to look again at how they are defining this "control" point. Because it sucks. 

[Billzgobowlin]

8 hours ago, ChanticleerBillsFan said:

I just don’t know how it’s overturned. Have they done away with the inconclusive evidence part of it and now just go with what looks good?

The end of the Miami-Virginia Tech game is the epitome of the "I think it should be a changed call" mindset.  Refs have taken it upon themselves to re-officiate the play which is not supposed to happen.  That is officiating with emotion.  I'll tell you, I don't think there is any nefarious reasoning but just they think the call needs to change.  They will never admit it because they are supposed to be impartial and it could turn bad if it gives the appearance of the refs showing favoritism.

4 hours ago, DCOrange said:

The simple way to think of it is that he originally has the ball sort of pinned to his stomach with his right wrist and then solidifies control with his left hand. By rule, the NFL would say he didn't have possession of the ball until he began holding it with his left hand. After that point, he got 1 or 0 feet in bounds. Therefore, not a catch.

This is more of an assumption.  No one except for Coleman knows truly if he has complete control.

[Blackbeard]

Td or not, that was one of the most beautiful catches I’ve ever seen. 
 

 

[GaryPinC]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It's one of the biggest inconsistencies in the NFL playbook IMO. If you are a "runner" at the point you break the plane with possession it's a touchdown. If you are still considered as being in the process of a catch at the point you break the plane it is not a touchdown until you have completed the catch. 

 

I don't know how you fix it because if you go the other other way and say a player who crosses the plane while in the process of making a catch is in once he breaks the plane then you have an inconsistency with a player making a catch in the endzone who isn't credited with the catch, and thereby the touchdown, until he has completed all elements of the process. 

 

Personally, the bit of the rule they have gone way over the top with that played into Keon's play not being a TD last night is the "control" part of establishing possession. They are obsessed with "is the ball still moving" and in my view Keon caught the ball while his left foot was down, then got his right foot down and then the left came down again out of bounds. The fact that the ball was still moving when his initial left foot was in contact with the ground - so what? He had it, he never lost it, both feet were in with Keon having the ball. Don't get me wrong the officials called it right by the current rules and interpretation. I knew from the first replay it was not gonna count. But I think they need to look again at how they are defining this "control" point. Because it sucks. 

Thanks for this as I think you perfectly capture the quandary of these situations.  How to fix?  I think you allow in effect a continuation component to establish the ball is secure and the catch fully completed before either the player or ball is considered "on the ground."

In effect for this situation, Keon was in control while crossing the GL inbounds and able to secure it while technically out of bounds.  If the ball had hit the ground before being secured at the end then no TD.

Edited October 21 by GaryPinC

[NewEra]

I thought it was pretty obvious that they weren’t going to call that a TD.  Close, but he lost possession slightly and it was over at that point

[Neo]

Thank heavens we spend 7 minutes watching, and days posting, about instant replay review.  Sure makes the product better.

 

Just have the ref make the call and move on.    Half of the fan base would be happy, half would be mad, just like today and the game experience would be so much better.