The Coleman non-touchdown

[LABILLBACKER]

7 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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

 

It never came out nor did he have to survive going to the ground (another terrible portion of the rule). This is a td from 100 different angles.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

🤦‍♂️.   Nice view - you can clearly see his had is already off the ball by step 2.  
 

 

I guess i’m not seeing his hand off the ball on step 2. 

 

I see the ball not move until step 3.

[MJS]

9 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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

 

I think he didn't have possession yet for the first step and began bobbling it as the 2nd step came down. If his third step would have been in bounds, which it wasn't,  it would have been a catch, because he gained possession by that point and then got another foot in bounds as he was going down.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Another overly technical NFL rule.......that is all

[TBBills Fan]

Over under on the game was 40.  That TD put the total at 41.  

 

I wonder which way the money went this week?  We're people smashing the over?  You have to wonder

[zow2]

7 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Could you imagine the fan meltdown if that was a SB game winning catch.  The NFL has an obligation to it's fans to clean up this convoluted embarrassing rule.

 

I can understand reversals for ball scraping the ground and whether feet are inbounds… but the small wobble that can only be picked up by super slo mo broken down frame by frame. I hate that. because in real time with the naked eye these guys make great catches and control the ball.  

[Big Turk]

6 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

It never came out nor did he have to survive going to the ground (another terrible portion of the rule). This is a td from 100 different angles.

 

I'm guessing they ruled he did not actually have possession with his initial foot down until he regained it in the endzone and that's when his other foot barely was out of bounds.

 

Essentially the first foot down didn't count because he didn't possess it fully at that point.

[PrimeTime101]

Thats a TD. Technically he made a football move before the ball started to move. It was in firm grasp till his foot went out of bounds. 

clear TD

[thenorthremembers]

They just need to take away the loophole.  A runner who touches the white line cannot fumble the ball as its a touchdown.  A wideout who has two feet down and has completed control should now be a runner, as such no further action should matter. 

[LABILLBACKER]

36 minutes ago, bmur66 said:

It looked like a TD to me. 

That's the point. In real time it looks like a td to the entire population.  Then you start slowing down to mili-frames a micro bobble during the 3rd foot down. It takes away completely from the spirit of competition and viewership. 

[Doc]

He caught it, got two feet down, made a football move, crossed the plane and then the defender dislodged it.  Should have been a TD.

[QLBillsFan]

59 minutes 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.

I think where people get caught up is crossing the plane. If in control and diving and it crosses then is lost, that’s ok. But the rule is control , two feet even if over the plane on a reception. I don’t like the rule but it’s how they call it. 

[LABILLBACKER]

1 minute ago, thenorthremembers said:

They just need to take away the loophole.  A runner who touches the white line cannot fumble the ball as its a touchdown.  A wideout who has two feet down and has completed control should now be a runner, as such no further action should matter. 

If a RB makes that catch it's an instantaneous td crossing the plane.

[Einstein]

10 minutes ago, MJS said:

I think he didn't have possession yet for the first step and began bobbling it as the 2nd step came down. If his third step would have been in bounds, which it wasn't,  it would have been a catch, because he gained possession by that point and then got another foot in bounds as he was going down.

 

No his 3rd step is when the ball came out. 

[Drew21PA]

Whatever - I want him to play with that madness he had after 

 

that was awesome how he played with a purpose and took over 

[Not at the table Karlos]

24 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Could you imagine the fan meltdown if that was a SB game winning catch.  The NFL has an obligation to its fans to clean up this convoluted embarrassing rule.

I’d be more upset at Coleman for not catching the ball than the refs for correctly applying a rule. 

[LABILLBACKER]

4 minutes ago, Drew21PA said:

Whatever - I want him to play with that madness he had after 

 

that was awesome how he played with a purpose and took over 

You could tell Josh was pissed too and made it a point to feed him on the very next drive. Even though the game was over.

[BobbyC81]

1 hour 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?

Sometimes they just wing it.  Remember when Gene Steratore took an index card out of his pocket and used it to show the ball was short of the first down?
 

The way UB’s game ended yesterday also pissed me off.  Ball was marked improperly and then the chain measurement was sketchy.  Usually you see while one guy holds one pole on one end, and at the ball end, the guy lifts the pole until he has tension, then puts the pole down.  In this instance, the guy seemed to drag the pole and chain and it looked like the chain was on the ground, not taut.  They then said Western Michigan got the first down by a hair, instead of a UB 4th down stop.  Game over.
 

[JerseyBills]

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 

Edited October 21 by JerseyBills

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, HansLanda said:

You can sooner understand sending a manned mission to Mars before you can figure out how the NFL determines what deems a "catch" 

if just following the rules and logic, a lot of it makes sense. 
 

if trying to extrapolate to every variation of a guy catching a ball can go down and how another guy watching that in real time will call it and thinking it will extrapolate across every play consistently - much more futile.