peterpan Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 9 hours ago, Einstein said: There were 3 full feet down before ball came out though. Wow thanks for the replay. They never showed this on TV. This makes it pretty obvious- no catch. Not even close. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maynard Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 In real time it’s a TD. However, the refs did get the call correct. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruffalo Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 I think when it takes that long to overturn a call on the field, it means that there isn't clear and obvious evidence to overturn the call. To the letter of the rule, maybe it's not a TD, I can't say. In real time it's being called a TD every time by every officiating crew. That's a TD in my book, and an insane individual effort. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCOrange Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 (edited) 3 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said: This is more of an assumption. No one except for Coleman knows truly if he has complete control. It doesn't really matter once he switched hands the way he did. That act where the ball moved and he switched from having it pinned to his stomach to holding it in his hand essentially resets the process of establishing possession. And once that happens, it was very clear that he did not get two feet in. If he had kept the ball pinned to his stomach the whole way through, it would have been a catch. Edited October 21 by DCOrange 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCOrange Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 6 minutes ago, Bruffalo said: I think when it takes that long to overturn a call on the field, it means that there isn't clear and obvious evidence to overturn the call. To the letter of the rule, maybe it's not a TD, I can't say. In real time it's being called a TD every time by every officiating crew. That's a TD in my book, and an insane individual effort. I don't really understand why it took so long to begin with. I think one viewing of the first angle should have been enough to overturn it. Personally I just hate replay reviews in almost all sports. With the exception of sports like tennis and cricket, there's a decent chance the refs still get the call wrong and all we've accomplished is wasting more time. Games are long enough as is; much better as a viewer if they just make a call and move on IMO. For example, some professional soccer tournaments use VAR and some do not. The ones that do not use VAR are way more watchable to me. 1 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuncha Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 NFL changes the rules on the fly. How many times did Rudolph intentionally ground the football yesterday? None were called. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 Well, at least it didn’t happen in Mexico City or Berlin……so they got that part right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCOrange Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 hour ago, Nuncha said: NFL changes the rules on the fly. How many times did Rudolph intentionally ground the football yesterday? None were called. Intentional grounding drives me crazy too. The actual plays that are penalized are often not actually intentional (ex: QB throws a ball expecting a vertical route but the WR breaks it off just as he's throwing so it looks like there's no intended target). Meanwhile purposefully spiking the ball at the RB's feet on a screen pass is not "intentional". 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibum Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 On the replay, it looks to me like he had two feet down with control of the ball, before turning around, crossing the goal-line, and then dropping the ball. To my eyes, it does look like he had possession of the ball and two feet down when the ball crossed the line, so anything after that should be moot. I can see the argument that he never had complete control, but I would say he did - though it was very, very brief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerBillsFan Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 15 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? If a runner fumbles 1 centimeter after the ball breaks the plane, it’s a TD. Coleman had 2 feet down, ball broke the plane, and then it came out. 100% it was a TD. Must have been the fact it would have allowed Allen to tie Mahomes for the most TD's in the first 100 games effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 In the 1970s, that would be a TD: He catches the ball in bounds, doesn't drop it, and gets into the endzone. If today's rules don't view that as a touchdown, I think there's something wrong with the rules. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billykay Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 16 hours ago, Einstein said: But he DID have control when crossing the plane. The ball didn’t move until after he was in the endzone. I guess you have to define control. The ball moved in his hands. So what. He never lost control and the ball obviously never touched the ground. Receivers often shift the ball around in their possession in order to get a better grip. That doesn't mean that they lost control. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat68 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 6 hours ago, peterpan said: Wow thanks for the replay. They never showed this on TV. This makes it pretty obvious- no catch. Not even close. The moment the second foot is down and the ball crosses the endzone it is a touchdown. Coleman wasn’t going to the ground. The “complete the catch” is not needed. The defender knocked it loose after those things took place. On the 50 its not a catch in the endzone it’s a touchdown. No second act is need because he scored. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with No Name Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 13 minutes ago, billykay said: I guess you have to define control. The ball moved in his hands. So what. He never lost control and the ball obviously never touched the ground. Receivers often shift the ball around in their possession in order to get a better grip. That doesn't mean that they lost control. This is how I see it. You are allowed to shift the ball around without "losing control." This is a weird one, and I ABSOLUTELY see why some people are saying no catch. But I think that's arguable. And I think by the letter of the law for being able to overturn a call on the field, the call could have and should have stayed. as much as they'd like to be able to, you just can't make everything objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 3 hours ago, DCOrange said: Intentional grounding drives me crazy too. The actual plays that are penalized are often not actually intentional (ex: QB throws a ball expecting a vertical route but the WR breaks it off just as he's throwing so it looks like there's no intended target). Meanwhile purposefully spiking the ball at the RB's feet on a screen pass is not "intentional". I think if they started calling IGs on screens (and those dirtings by QBs happen all the time), I think it might end up eliminating the screen pass game for many teams. IGs are terrible penalties to suffer and screens are very high-risk throws if a defense has sniffed it out. You're throwing into mass of aware defenders on such plays, so turnovers are a threat, and it'll also result in a big loss if caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan in Cleveland Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 6 hours ago, peterpan said: Wow thanks for the replay. They never showed this on TV. This makes it pretty obvious- no catch. Not even close. They showed it several times on TV. It was pretty obvious the ball was coming out. In other views it looked clear his toe on the third step was OOB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCBillsBeliever Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 17 hours ago, Rocbillsfan1 said: Yea I don’t get it. The NFL is so stupid. No: They're smart. They're trying to prevent Coleman from having a statistically better season than Worthy, so the talking heads can continue to crow about how Buffalo gave KC the fastest player in NFL Draft history... I hate it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCOrange Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 2 hours ago, dave mcbride said: I think if they started calling IGs on screens (and those dirtings by QBs happen all the time), I think it might end up eliminating the screen pass game for many teams. IGs are terrible penalties to suffer and screens are very high-risk throws if a defense has sniffed it out. You're throwing into mass of aware defenders on such plays, so turnovers are a threat, and it'll also result in a big loss if caught. Yeah, I'm honestly not sure how I think the penalty should actually be applied because if you try to really apply the rule the way it sounds (penalizing throws that are intentionally inaccurate) it adds a pretty severe amount of subjectivity to it. It just feels silly to name the penalty intentional grounding when the league lets QBs spike those screen passes intentionally all the time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuncha Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, DCOrange said: Intentional grounding drives me crazy too. The actual plays that are penalized are often not actually intentional (ex: QB throws a ball expecting a vertical route but the WR breaks it off just as he's throwing so it looks like there's no intended target). Meanwhile purposefully spiking the ball at the RB's feet on a screen pass is not "intentional". Most times it's not even at the RB's feet, but some O lineman. The ball is supposed to reach the LOS too. The QB's intent in these cases is clearly to avoid a sack. Edited October 21 by Nuncha 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 hour ago, ROCBillsBeliever said: No: They're smart. They're trying to prevent Coleman from having a statistically better season than Worthy, so the talking heads can continue to crow about how Buffalo gave KC the fastest player in NFL Draft history... I hate it... They failed because I'm pretty certain those throws to Keon afterward was basically Josh saying, I'm going to get you some yards here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.