The Coleman non-touchdown

[DCOrange]

2 hours 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.

From this point of view, it's interesting to compare this play and the Kincaid one a week ago. IMO Kincaid never really had control of the ball, but it didn't move all that much; you could just tell looking at it that it wasn't secure.

 

Here, Coleman had the ball securely pinned to his body, not moving at all, and then solidified possession with the left hand later. I think if we're ignoring the actual rules, Coleman did have pretty secure control of the ball through all of that. But based on the way the NFL applies the rules, that brief moment where he goes from having it pinned to his body to then shifting it to his hand constitutes a loss of possession so it restarts the two-feet aspect.

[peterpan]

2 hours ago, Mat68 said:

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. 

I’m sorry but you are simply mistaken.  That’s not the rule. 

[Simon]

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...

 

Are you seriously going ot start dragging that nonsense outside of the thread that you've already created for it?

Give us a break.....

 

[Matt_In_NH]

2 hours ago, Mat68 said:

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. 

This sounds like your view of what the rule should be and sounds nothing like what the rule actually is.

3 hours 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.

There is always a grey area no matter how you try to define a catch when you slow it down to frame by frame but when the ball comes out of your hands come off the ball and double clutch it don't ever expect that to be a catch.  If the ball moves and you maintain your hands on it in a controlled fashion...catch.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

6 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". 

drives me nuts too, including the spiking the ball at the RB’s feet on a busted screen. They need to change that rule. If you have a busted screen, then that’s on the offense. You either throw a semi-catchable ball at the RB or you have to eat it.

[LABILLBACKER]

55 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

From this point of view, it's interesting to compare this play and the Kincaid one a week ago. IMO Kincaid never really had control of the ball, but it didn't move all that much; you could just tell looking at it that it wasn't secure.

 

Here, Coleman had the ball securely pinned to his body, not moving at all, and then solidified possession with the left hand later. I think if we're ignoring the actual rules, Coleman did have pretty secure control of the ball through all of that. But based on the way the NFL applies the rules, that brief moment where he goes from having it pinned to his body to then shifting it to his hand constitutes a loss of possession so it restarts the two-feet aspect.

How bout we return to the old common sense NFL rule that it's only incomplete if the ball hits the ground.  Good Lord, we're dissecting micro- bobbles in slo- mo freeze frames under a microscope. Is this what the NFL intended the spirit of the game to be.  Pretty soon we'll have to wait for an outcome / overturn based on social media likes. Get rid of replay and replace the flow again.

[Meatloaf63]

43 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

This sounds like your view of what the rule should be and sounds nothing like what the rule actually is.

There is always a grey area no matter how you try to define a catch when you slow it down to frame by frame but when the ball comes out of your hands come off the ball and double clutch it don't ever expect that to be a catch.  If the ball moves and you maintain your hands on it in a controlled fashion...catch.

There was never a time the ball wasn’t pinned against his body, but it did rotate. Personally, I think that should be a catch in that case, but I’m sure the rules say otherwise.

[DCOrange]

49 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

How bout we return to the old common sense NFL rule that it's only incomplete if the ball hits the ground.  Good Lord, we're dissecting micro- bobbles in slo- mo freeze frames under a microscope. Is this what the NFL intended the spirit of the game to be.  Pretty soon we'll have to wait for an outcome / overturn based on social media likes. Get rid of replay and replace the flow again.

There was never really a time where you weren't required to get two feet in though and that's really the issue at play. Does he get two feet in after securing the ball? Because of the way he moved the ball, the NFL's answer would be that he failed to get two feet in.

 

I agree with the idea of getting rid of replay reviews though; more trouble than its worth IMO.

[PromoTheRobot]

20 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. 

 

 

 

It's called Schrödinger's Touchdown. It's both a catch and not a catch.

[NewEra]

11 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

There was never really a time where you weren't required to get two feet in though and that's really the issue at play. Does he get two feet in after securing the ball? Because of the way he moved the ball, the NFL's answer would be that he failed to get two feet in.

 

I agree with the idea of getting rid of replay reviews though; more trouble than it’s worth IMO.

get rid of replay entirely? Only if there were a couple booth officials watching via better angles with the ability to rewatch plays.  The booth already already intervenes and corrects calls- why not just have them ok’ing every close play. It can be done quick enough where it wouldn’t ruin game flow much more than it already does imo.  

[DCOrange]

11 minutes ago, NewEra said:

get rid of replay entirely? Only if there were a couple booth officials watching via better angles with the ability to rewatch plays.  The booth already already intervenes and corrects calls- why not just have them ok’ing every close play. It can be done quick enough where it wouldn’t ruin game flow much more than it already does imo.  

That would be fine with me. I'm just so over taking 5 minute breaks to still get calls wrong half the time. Or taking 5 minute breaks to get this call right but there's a million other plays you either don't or can't review so it's not like you're really doing it to make sure the "right" team wins. All these replay reviews do IMO is waste our time.

Edited October 21 by DCOrange

[NewEra]

10 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

That would be fine with me. I'm just so over taking 5 minute breaks to still get calls wrong half the time. Or taking 5 minute breaks to get this call right but there's a million other plays you either don't or can't review so it's not like you're really doing it to make sure the "right" team wins. All these replay reviews do IMO is waste our time.

🤷🏻‍♂️ they waste our time and they also correct lots of bad calls.  
 

 

[djp14150]

12 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.

 

I saw a replay from this perspective on redzone

 

5 hours ago, Mat68 said:

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. 

Thsts not how it works.

 

he is not a running back running toward the end zone. 
 

you must have control, have 3 feet down, thrn do a football move like take a step and turn like what Kincaid did for thst catch around the 2.

 

in the replay two things happen…(1) after 2 feet down he loses possession with the bobble, thrn (2) thst third foot touches the out of bounds line.

[JakeFrommStateFarm]

I didnt see a bobble but I thought they ruled it incomplete because his second foot was out of bounds.

 

He just needs to do a quick stutter step with the 2nd foot.

 

Keep in mind in college you only need one foot down not two

[ROCBillsBeliever]

4 hours ago, Simon said:

 

Are you seriously going ot start dragging that nonsense outside of the thread that you've already created for it?

Give us a break.....

 

 

I am begging for a break, myself: A break from the negativity pointed at every Bills move, every draft pick, every Josh Allen intercep... Wait... He hasn't thrown one yet.

 

I'm sorry if it bothers you that I see what's going on out there, and that I'm sensitive to it. 

[flmike]

On 10/20/2024 at 9:05 PM, 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 didn't we have one recently where the opposing receiver caught the ball in the EZ but our DBs knocked it loose?

[JerseyBills]

It's a great sign either way, Josh really trusts him 1 v 1 already and kid has some great footwork 

[Mat68]

16 hours ago, djp14150 said:

 

I saw a replay from this perspective on redzone

 

Thsts not how it works.

 

he is not a running back running toward the end zone. 
 

you must have control, have 3 feet down, thrn do a football move like take a step and turn like what Kincaid did for thst catch around the 2.

 

in the replay two things happen…(1) after 2 feet down he loses possession with the bobble, thrn (2) thst third foot touches the out of bounds line.

3 feet are not required. Two feet and a turn should have qualified.  Kincaid’s 3rd foot down made it where he didn't have to maintain control through the ground.  

[Mat68]

1 foot down when ball arrives. Second foot, does 180 ball crosses goal line. Thats 2 feet and football move across the goal.  What happens after does not matter. 

[Sweats]

The league is just making **** up as they go