The Coleman non-touchdown

[Royale with Cheese]

22 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. 

Then why wasn’t this a TD?

Wilson is across the goaline and lands two feet with control of the ball before Rapp annihilates him.

 

 

[Einstein]

[Mat68]

20 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Then why wasn’t this a TD?

Wilson is across the goaline and lands two feet with control of the ball before Rapp annihilates him.

 

 

Dont believe he got both feet down and didn't make a football move.  

 

11 minutes ago, Einstein said:

The Clip starts a bit late.  The beginning he has a foot down 1.  Body facing LOS.  Second foot down. Body face back of endzone.  2nd foot. Body now facing opposite direction football move.  After the second foot and Coleman facing the backline 29 forced the ball loose. Im disputing getting 2 feet down and getting his body upfield qualifies for a football move.  Coleman is facing the back of the endzone when the ball becomes loose. In my eyes thats 2 feet down and a football move.  He is in the end zone so the moment it happens play is over.  

[Einstein]

3 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

The Clip starts a bit late.  

 

Ball is still in the air when clip starts. May be tough to see though. 

That play was a big controversy when it happened.

[Royale with Cheese]

20 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

Dont believe he got both feet down and didn't make a football move.  

 

He did have two feet on the ground and it was secured when those two feet hit.

Why does he have to make a football move if he already possesses the ball with two feet in the endzone?

[zow2]

I feel like Keon is going to have many reviewable catches in his career,  mainly because he's specializes in these contested catches right by the sidelines. So they will always look at the feet,,, but the tiny little ball wobble while cradling it will also be micro-reviewed.  I hate that because in real time a lot of the NFL receivers make great boundary catches and you can't see anything with the naked eye. Then on replay the smallest bobble or repositioning of the ball while maintaining control of it is overturned.  I'm not a fan of that. 

[Mat68]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

He did have two feet on the ground and it was secured when those two feet hit.

Why does he have to make a football move if he already possesses the ball with two feet in the endzone?

These are nowhere close to similar plays. 

[SoCal Deek]

Consensus: NOBODY has any idea what a catch is anymore….including the NFL

[That's No Moon]

On 10/20/2024 at 9:06 PM, pigpen65 said:

Sometimes a challenge can only be for one particular aspect of a play and sometimes, like today, they can rust review a play and the officials can overturn any part of it they want. 

Once it's reviewed any part of the play that is normally reviewable is fair game.

 

Unless you're in Houston and a guy in a black jacket comes out of the stands. 

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Consensus: NOBODY has any idea what a catch is anymore….including the NFL

It's whatever they want it to be at a given moment. By design.

[Mat68]

Need to go back to the beginning.  Clear and obvious.  Using 4k still framing a .5 second portion of a play is wild. In real time real speed catch, no catch becomes much clearer. 

[Royale with Cheese]

52 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

These are nowhere close to similar plays. 

 

I'm going off of your statement of once you have two feet down and control of the ball across the goal line, it's a touchdown.

It's not a similar play but it's two feet down, ball in hands and across the goal line.  

[Mat68]

Yes when you are entering the end zone and not going to the ground. Wilson is diving got hit and lost control almost as so as the ball hit his hands. Catching it one handed maneuvering around a defender is not the same thing.  

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

Yes when you are entering the end zone and not going to the ground. Wilson is diving got hit and lost control almost as so as the ball hit his hands. Catching it one handed maneuvering around a defender is not the same thing.  

 

Wilson wasn't diving but I did see another angle on the replay.  He didn't get his second foot down before the ball was knocked loose so you're right there.

But I do think if he did get both feet down and Rapp knocked the ball loose, then it would have been an incomplete pass.  

[djp14150]

12 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Wilson wasn't diving but I did see another angle on the replay.  He didn't get his second foot down before the ball was knocked loose so you're right there.

But I do think if he did get both feet down and Rapp knocked the ball loose, then it would have been an incomplete pass.  

Having 2 feet down in the end zone then getting drilled almost immediately and the ball falls out— this is not a catch …consistently not a car Ch.

 

with Coleman the ball made significant movement before the next foot v came down that resets the completion process 

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

Having 2 feet down in the end zone then getting drilled almost immediately and the ball falls out— this is not a catch …consistently not a car Ch.

 

with Coleman the ball made significant movement before the next foot v came down that resets the completion process 

 

I know.  I first thought Wilson landed with both feet and control of the ball but I was wrong.

[Meatloaf63]

2 hours ago, zow2 said:

I feel like Keon is going to have many reviewable catches in his career,  mainly because he's specializes in these contested catches right by the sidelines. So they will always look at the feet,,, but the tiny little ball wobble while cradling it will also be micro-reviewed.  I hate that because in real time a lot of the NFL receivers make great boundary catches and you can't see anything with the naked eye. Then on replay the smallest bobble or repositioning of the ball while maintaining control of it is overturned.  I'm not a fan of that. 

I don’t think that a ball that might rotate slightly against the body should not be a catch, I think it should have to lose contact of the body, he really never at any point didn’t have control.

[Einstein]

31 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

I don’t think that a ball that might rotate slightly against the body should not be a catch, I think it should have to lose contact of the body, he really never at any point didn’t have control.

 

Bingo.

This is where I am.

 

Posters acting as if the ball fell from his arm to his ankle on between his first and second step.

 

All it didn’t was move slightly lower on the same forearm as where it was the whole time.

 

The ball didn’t truly come out until AFTER 2 steps and a move.

[Ecmic82]

Another thing to consider is that the “football move” cannot be considered to have begun until after the second foot is down.

 

He’s already at least halfway through his turn by the time his second foot comes down. Therefore, most of that turn is ineligible to even be considered as a football move that’s part of the catch.

 

He loses control of the ball fractions of a second after his second foot comes down. In my opinion, barely enough time to begin, let alone complete, a football move. I think it was a good call. I would’ve been pissed if a Bills’ opponent pulled off that play and it was ruled a touchdown.

[Meatloaf63]

56 minutes ago, Ecmic82 said:

Another thing to consider is that the “football move” cannot be considered to have begun until after the second foot is down.

 

He’s already at least halfway through his turn by the time his second foot comes down. Therefore, most of that turn is ineligible to even be considered as a football move that’s part of the catch.

 

He loses control of the ball fractions of a second after his second foot comes down. In my opinion, barely enough time to begin, let alone complete, a football move. I think it was a good call. I would’ve been pissed if a Bills’ opponent pulled off that play and it was ruled a touchdown.

Nope, it’s two feet down and a football move, not two feet down and then a football move. The too move can start as soon as there is possession/control.

[BearNorth]

55 minutes ago, Ecmic82 said:

Another thing to consider is that the “football move” cannot be considered to have begun until after the second foot is down.

 

 

How does that work with a toe drag?  Receiver is moving towards the boundary, makes the catch, and pretty close to simultaneously does the toe tap.  There is very little done other than catching the ball, getting two feet down and falling out of bounds.  The football move here is simultaneous to the catch and getting parts of both feet down.