The Coleman non-touchdown

[peterpan]

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.

[Maynard]

In real time it’s a TD. However, the refs did get the call correct. 

[Bruffalo]

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. 

[DCOrange]

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 yesterday at 12:57 PM by DCOrange

[DCOrange]

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.

[Nuncha]

NFL changes the rules on the fly.  How many times did Rudolph intentionally ground the football yesterday?  None were called.

[Augie]

Well, at least it didn’t happen in Mexico City or Berlin……so they got that part right. 

[DCOrange]

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". 

[skibum]

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.

[SoonerBillsFan]

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.

[hondo in seattle]

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.  

[billykay]

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.

[Mat68]

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. 

[Man with No Name]

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. 

[dave mcbride]

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.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

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. 

[ROCBillsBeliever]

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...

[DCOrange]

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.

[Nuncha]

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 22 hours ago by Nuncha

[dave mcbride]

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.