Ecmic82 Posted October 22 Posted October 22 Just now, Meatloaf63 said: 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. The rulebook states, “after (a) [player secures the ball] and (b) [player touches the ground with both feet] have been fulfilled, [player] performs any act common to the game” Quote
Ecmic82 Posted October 22 Posted October 22 2 minutes ago, BearNorth said: 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. An acceptable act, according to the rulebook, is simply possessing the ball long enough to theoretically make a football move, whether the player actually makes a football move or not isn’t the determinative factor. So, going out of bounds on a toe drag, that’d look like maintained possession of the ball for a time beyond the moment the player touches the sideline. Surviving the ground while falling out of bounds would fall under this category as well. Quote
Dukestreetking Posted October 22 Posted October 22 4 hours ago, That's No Moon said: 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. Thank you for this: was watching on an an LA-NYC flight, sitting next to another Bills fan, and we both lost our minds, very loudly. Other passengers thought we were terrorists. Anyway, this play still drives me bat-sht crazy when I think about it (even if it was a "by-rule" call, or whatever). 1 Quote
Einstein Posted October 23 Author Posted October 23 2 hours ago, Ecmic82 said: An acceptable act, according to the rulebook, is simply possessing the ball long enough to theoretically make a football move, whether the player actually makes a football move or not isn’t the determinative factor. So, going out of bounds on a toe drag, that’d look like maintained possession of the ball for a time beyond the moment the player touches the sideline. Surviving the ground while falling out of bounds would fall under this category as well. How is turning upfield not a football move? Coleman definitley did that. 1 1 Quote
Ecmic82 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Einstein said: How is turning upfield not a football move? Coleman definitley did that. Turning up field is a football move, but only after the second foot comes down. Most of the turn occurred before the second foot came down, so most of the turn cannot, by the rulebook, be considered the “football move” for that play. the rulebook outlines three phases of a catch: (1) possession of the ball, (2) two feet or one other body part must touch the ground, and (3) an act common to the game (a football move). And they must occur in that specific order. Everything Coleman did before his second foot came down should be ignored when looking at the third phase of a catch. Edited October 23 by Ecmic82 Quote
Scott7975 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 On 10/20/2024 at 10:22 PM, JerseyBills said: Even though it didn't work out, it's a great sign for the future, Allen trusts him 1v1 and he's only going to get better! Great throw,catch and timing With people on both sides of the argument about catch or no catch, this is the important thing. You are 100% right. Cooper adds such an extra dimension to this team that it lacked. Defense will have to play us different now. I expect Coleman to get a lot of opportunities as the weeks go on. Quote
Billsatlastin2018 Posted October 24 Posted October 24 On 10/22/2024 at 9:59 PM, Ecmic82 said: Turning up field is a football move, but only after the second foot comes down. Most of the turn occurred before the second foot came down, so most of the turn cannot, by the rulebook, be considered the “football move” for that play. the rulebook outlines three phases of a catch: (1) possession of the ball, (2) two feet or one other body part must touch the ground, and (3) an act common to the game (a football move). And they must occur in that specific order. Everything Coleman did before his second foot came down should be ignored when looking at the third phase of a catch. This is incredible parsing, designed to find the slightest subjective fault to determine a legal catch. He caught the ball with two feet. He crossed the GL, possessing the ball. He then went to the ground, with the slightest movement with the ball never coming close to touching the ground. In the minds of the highest percentage of football fans, that was and should always be a catch! If the ball is not slipping through one’s hands at the point of catch, should be ruled a catch- always. Making it not, exposes the NFL to ridicule. Quote
Ethan in Cleveland Posted October 24 Posted October 24 2 minutes ago, Billsatlastin2018 said: This is incredible parsing, designed to find the slightest subjective fault to determine a legal catch. He caught the ball with two feet. He crossed the GL, possessing the ball. He then went to the ground, with the slightest movement with the ball never coming close to touching the ground. In the minds of the highest percentage of football fans, that was and should always be a catch! If the ball is not slipping through one’s hands at the point of catch, should be ruled a catch- always. Making it not, exposes the NFL to ridicule. Except it was slipping out of his hands. He clearly did not have control of the ball and then his third step was OOB. It was not a catch. 1 Quote
Big Turk Posted October 24 Posted October 24 (edited) On 10/20/2024 at 8:55 PM, 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. I am assuming the "3rd element" was not satisfied until he made a "football move" of some sort or got a 3rd foot down and that the ball started moving during the process of that happening. Only thing I can think of but I agree...it should be a TD once it crosses the front plane of the goalline with 2 feet down and possession. Edited October 24 by Big Turk Quote
Motorin' Posted October 24 Posted October 24 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Billsatlastin2018 said: This is incredible parsing, designed to find the slightest subjective fault to determine a legal catch. He caught the ball with two feet. He crossed the GL, possessing the ball. He then went to the ground, with the slightest movement with the ball never coming close to touching the ground. In the minds of the highest percentage of football fans, that was and should always be a catch! If the ball is not slipping through one’s hands at the point of catch, should be ruled a catch- always. Making it not, exposes the NFL to ridicule. If the ball didn't move without either hand having control of it, then yes it would have been a catch. But the ball squirted free before he completed the catch, which means he has to start the process over. Get control again, get two feet or one body part down, and make a move common to the game. But one of his feet touched OOB before he could have two feet down, making it incomplete. Had that toe not touched out of bounds, and he fell backwards into the end zone while maintaining control, it also would have been a catch. Edited October 24 by Motorin' Quote
Ecmic82 Posted October 24 Posted October 24 46 minutes ago, Billsatlastin2018 said: This is incredible parsing, designed to find the slightest subjective fault to determine a legal catch. He caught the ball with two feet. He crossed the GL, possessing the ball. He then went to the ground, with the slightest movement with the ball never coming close to touching the ground. In the minds of the highest percentage of football fans, that was and should always be a catch! If the ball is not slipping through one’s hands at the point of catch, should be ruled a catch- always. Making it not, exposes the NFL to ridicule. Yeah with catches like this there’s going to usually be some degree of parsing. But the player in the above photo does not have possession of that football. His left hand isn’t touching the ball, and if his left hand doesn’t come over to quickly resecure it, the ball is going to be on the ground within the next second, because his right hand no longer has possession. If the left nor the right hand have possession (another way to put it is “control”) of the football, the player does not have possession of the football. the GIF that this screenshot was taken of (another poster posted it earlier in the thread) further illuminates this. it’s a close call, but by the rulebook (and, that’s the important metric, not fan opinion) I think the refs called it right. Quote
DrPJax Posted October 25 Posted October 25 (edited) This is my issue with the nfl. So because Coleman at super slow speed has a question if both hands were off the ball , not in control, yet by physics he controlled the balls direction and momentum and it Mohave been touching , being controlled by his torso. The Ball was never dropped , never hit the ground. in tonight’s game Jefferson juggled a ball several times , and yet supposedly control was him pinning it against the side of his helmet with ONE HAND, AND HE MOVES IT DOWN TO HIS ABDOMEN WITH THAT ONE HAND , Sliding IT INTO HIS GUT as he is stepping out of bounds. No time was taken to review unlike the Coleman call, as the Vikings ran to the LOS, snapped it , so the rams. Ouldnt ask for a review. Of course the broadcasters asked the in booth , nfl employed ref if he agreed it was a catch. In 2 seconds he said the company line of yes There is no way they gave the amount of attention to review that call that they took several angles and minutes reviewing colemans catch. . jefferson had the ball with no hands running forward, juggling it, before seemingly trapping it against his helmet right as he went OOB. COLEMAN CONTROLLED THE PATH of THE FOOTBALL THE ENTIRE TIME, it was within his “ bread basket “ and only in slo mo does any issue arise. . He was more in control of the ball for a longer period of time than Jefferson. Yet Jefferson’s catch , juggling along the sideline and trapping it against his helmet ( that’s control, as he moved it from there to his chest / stomach area from the side of his helmet ?) and with no review , was called a catch. The rams never were given a chance to request the review. Neither ball hit the ground , so my point is if control is started with two feet in , both finished controlling the path of the balls momentum and have full control at the end of the play. So either both are catches, which I think any fan would be happy with ,, or both deserve stopping the next play for equal super slo mo evaluation. No consistency is the NFL ISSUE, imo , as the level of scrutiny was not equal and how is pinning a ball against a helmet , but going out of bounds sliding it to the chest area be viewed as a complete catch more than Coleman’s? Then no review of the Jefferson call cuz Vikings got a quick snap off , but because Coleman’s was a score it was broken down for minutes. That’s what is frustrating. If you initiate control , control direction of the ball as you are finishing grasping it , and it never is dropped or hits the ground., that’s a catch by anyone’s common sense Maybe super slo mo tech should not be the go to in catch calls, but limited to very few things like fumbles or breaking the goal line , but wherever it has to be used consistently Two sets of evaluations, not equally applied , resulted in two different results and both plays were decided over the same issue as control. If it didn’t hit the ground while the reliever initiated ball contact , it should be control and a catch. The nfl has overcomplicated catches with camera use and the lack of uniformity is still plaguing the NFL. Edited October 25 by DrPJax 1 Quote
hondo in seattle Posted October 25 Posted October 25 10 hours ago, Billsatlastin2018 said: This is incredible parsing, designed to find the slightest subjective fault to determine a legal catch. He caught the ball with two feet. He crossed the GL, possessing the ball. He then went to the ground, with the slightest movement with the ball never coming close to touching the ground. In the minds of the highest percentage of football fans, that was and should always be a catch! If the ball is not slipping through one’s hands at the point of catch, should be ruled a catch- always. Making it not, exposes the NFL to ridicule. I agree that the rules should be written in a way that Keon scores. But I get the NFL. There is no catch until the receiver controls - and maintains control of - the ball. So if a receiver bobbles a ball as he goes out of bounds, it’s not a catch. Makes sense. Officially Keon didn’t catch the ball until he established control after the ball slipped. Once the catch was made, he didn’t get two feet in. I see it like you. He caught the ball. Never dropped it. Got two feet in bounds. Crossed the plane. Seems like it should be a TD but I’m not sure how the rule should be rewritten. Quote
Billsatlastin2018 Posted October 25 Posted October 25 10 hours ago, Ecmic82 said: Yeah with catches like this there’s going to usually be some degree of parsing. But the player in the above photo does not have possession of that football. His left hand isn’t touching the ball, and if his left hand doesn’t come over to quickly resecure it, the ball is going to be on the ground within the next second, because his right hand no longer has possession. If the left nor the right hand have possession (another way to put it is “control”) of the football, the player does not have possession of the football. the GIF that this screenshot was taken of (another poster posted it earlier in the thread) further illuminates this. it’s a close call, but by the rulebook (and, that’s the important metric, not fan opinion) I think the refs called it right. And WHERE exactly is that pic, where you see him with one hand on the ball? (Segue: Which, btw, many great Receivers do… catch with one hand) He is OVER the GL with 2 feet already down… 1 yard into the End Zone! A TD! Quote
Billsatlastin2018 Posted October 25 Posted October 25 8 hours ago, hondo in seattle said: I agree that the rules should be written in a way that Keon scores. But I get the NFL. There is no catch until the receiver controls - and maintains control of - the ball. So if a receiver bobbles a ball as he goes out of bounds, it’s not a catch. Makes sense. Officially Keon didn’t catch the ball until he established control after the ball slipped. Once the catch was made, he didn’t get two feet in. I see it like you. He caught the ball. Never dropped it. Got two feet in bounds. Crossed the plane. Seems like it should be a TD but I’m not sure how the rule should be rewritten. Yeah.For these situations… 2 feet down, crossing GL, ball in possession, that’s a TD! I know what the rule says It’s an ass and needs to be remedied! In addition, catch ball, 2 feet down, extend hand over GL (as Receivers are taught to do), with clear possession after catch, who gives a ***** whether the spike results in then losing the ball? Just like an RB/Josh Allen, you extended the ball running and broke the plane! That’s a TD. IF…you never have possession and are bobbling the ball constantly and then go to the ground/OOB without establishing possession after you cross the GL… NO TD! In this case, Coleman did everything correctly until he stepped out of bounds, AFTER HE CROSSED THE GL! Quote
Warriorspikes51 Posted October 25 Posted October 25 I thought he crossed the plain with possession, 2 feet and a football move....but what do I know 1 Quote
LABILLBACKER Posted October 25 Posted October 25 On 10/22/2024 at 8:00 PM, Scott7975 said: With people on both sides of the argument about catch or no catch, this is the important thing. You are 100% right. Cooper adds such an extra dimension to this team that it lacked. Defense will have to play us different now. I expect Coleman to get a lot of opportunities as the weeks go on. Keon will most definitely be one of the biggest recipients of the Cooper trade. He'll no longer see CB1. 10 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said: I thought he crossed the plain with possession, 2 feet and a football move....but what do I know This play still pisses me off and the rule is ridiculous. A catch is a catch. Stop dissecting and over analyzing it under the microscope. Takes away the spirit of the game. 1 Quote
Neo Posted October 26 Posted October 26 LOL at nine pages. Good thing the league improved its product with this nincompoopery. Make a call on the field and play on. 1 Quote
T master Posted October 26 Posted October 26 (edited) On 10/20/2024 at 6:56 PM, Rocbillsfan1 said: Yea I don’t get it. The NFL is so stupid. With in some of their rules there are some very confusing exceptions with in those rules . Like the one that say the ground can't cause a fumble, but if you make a catch and have possession while going to the ground but when you hit the ground and bobble the ball it's not a catch 🙃 ??? Then if a RB goes down but a elbow or knee hits the ground and the ball comes out after it's not a fumble, then again if a receiver goes down and any part of his body is down but doesn't hold on to the ball it's not a catch ?? One more too if a RB has the ball go across the goal line but while going to the ground the ball comes lose it's still a TD because he crossed the line ? Those are some i will never understand, i'm not sure if they have amended any of those particular rules but that was one i never understood ... Edited October 26 by T master Quote
LABILLBACKER Posted October 26 Posted October 26 9 minutes ago, T master said: With in some of their rules there are some very confusing exceptions with in those rules . Like the one that say the ground can't cause a fumble, but if you make a catch and have possession while going to the ground but when you hit the ground and bobble the ball it's not a catch 🙃 ??? Then if a RB goes down but a elbow or knee hits the ground and the ball comes out after it's not a fumble, then again if a receiver goes down and any part of his body is down but doesn't hold on to the ball it's not a catch ?? One more too if a RB has the ball go across the goal line but while going to the ground the ball comes lose it's still a TD because he crossed the line ? Those are some i will never understand, i'm not sure if they have amended any of those particular rules but that was one i never understood ... These rules are so ridiculously convoluted and favor RB's and absolutely screw WR's. 1 Quote
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.