Bears/Lions Game

[Sal Giaco]

Guys,
I am a baseball umpire but I also enjoy watching officials work different different sports. There was a controversial call towards the end of the Bears/Lions game yesterday and I was wondering if any of you saw it or could comment on it. The play was an apparent catch in the endzone (along the side) which was ruled incomplete by the official. To the untrained eye, the replays seemed to show that the receiver did not juggle the ball but the referee explained the following after using the replay booth:

"After review, as the receiver was going to the ground on his own, the ball moved when he hit the ground. It is an incomplete pass as ruled on the field.

This explanation seemed to confuse many people, including myself. I was hoping you guys could clarify what constitues a catch and/or possession. Thanks

[mikesears]

I believe in the NFL, a player who is being tackled immediately after going airborn to catch a pass must come down with 2 feet inbounds (which was met in the play) AND must demonstrate possession of the ball after he lands on the ground (did not meet this requirement).

I'd be curious to hear how others would have ruled had this been a high school or college game. I'm thinking (after seeing it in slow motion replay 10 times - LOL) that I would have rules touchdown in high school or college.

[Mike Simonds]

I did see the play in question and I agree with Mike Sears: it could go either way.

The criteria I use in judging catch or no catch is this: did the receiver demonstrate control over the ball by making an athletic move with it?

[Sal Giaco]

Originally posted by mikesears
I believe in the NFL, a player who is being tackled immediately after going airborn to catch a pass must come down with 2 feet inbounds (which was met in the play) AND must demonstrate possession of the ball after he lands on the ground (did not meet this requirement).

How is demonstrating possession defined or is it a judgement call by the official as to whether or not he demonstrated possession? In your opinion, do you agree with the call - Why or Why Not? Thanks for your help

[MJT]

Originally posted by mikesears
I believe in the NFL, a player who is being tackled immediately after going airborn to catch a pass must come down with 2 feet inbounds (which was met in the play) AND must demonstrate possession of the ball after he lands on the ground (did not meet this requirement).

I'd be curious to hear how others would have ruled had this been a high school or college game. I'm thinking (after seeing it in slow motion replay 10 times - LOL) that I would have rules touchdown in high school or college.

Mike is exactly right on his discussion of the NFL rule. I had a friend "Bears fan" who called me all pissed off about it. He knows I work NFL rules and wanted my opinion, although it didn't change his. I taped it, and watched it on slow motion of the slow motion they were showing, so super slow motion. The ball did move when it contacted the ground, so they were correct. I wonder if it had been originally ruled TD if they would have reversed it. They need "irrefutable" evidence to overturn and I don't know if they would have had that. I think it was one where if whatever the original ruling was, it would have held up. Those guys can toggle back and forth while doing the super slow motion with a perfect digital picture, so they "will" see it better than we can. All plays that are reviewed are viewed the following week as "homework" for all officials, so they are going to get it right probably 99.9% of the time. One big thing is to be "overturned" it must be "irrefutable" evidence and they must not have had that.

[Sal Giaco]

Could this be a "don't take the $hitty end of the stick"? The throw was perfect, the catch was even better - if the official had called it a TD, I don't think anyone would still be talking about the play. What do you guys think?

[MJT]

Originally posted by Sal Giaco

How is demonstrating possession defined or is it a judgement call by the official as to whether or not he demonstrated possession? In your opinion, do you agree with the call - Why or Why Not? Thanks for your help

By rule, NF, possession is "a live ball held or controlled..." in the NCAA "a player gains possession when he is firmly holding or controlling the ball while contacting the ground inbounds." NFL rules 8-1-7 supplemental note #4 "the player must maintain possession of the ball when he lands out of bounds."

So, I agree with their ruling for NFL, but in NF and NCAA it would have been rules a catch. He "did" meet the NF and NCAA requirements, but not the additional NFL requirements. Also NFL rule 8-1-5 note: "if there is any question by the covering official(s) if a pass is complete or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete." It looks as though they got it right.

[Sal Giaco]

Thanks MJT for your thorough response. Sounds like one of those "unpopular" calls but officiated correctly. They got it right and that's what matters

[PSU213]

Originally posted by Sal Giaco
Could this be a "don't take the $hitty end of the stick"? The throw was perfect, the catch was even better - if the official had called it a TD, I don't think anyone would still be talking about the play. What do you guys think?

First, thanks for having an intelligent converstion about this...too many people come in here with "sour grapes" and the like.

Anyway, I did not see the play in quesiton, but based on the descriptions, the right call was made, and people are talking about it, but as you said, it was the right call. Also, you mention that is was "unpopular," but if the incorrect call was made, it would be unpopular with the other side.

The "tuck rule" play was unpopular, especially with Raider fans, but it was the right call, as controversial as that rule is.

[Sal Giaco]

PSU213,

Your quote at the bottom of your posts "If the play is designed to fool someone, make sure you aren't the fool" reminds me of a baseball saying I learned at umpire school from former MLB Umpire Jim Evans who says:

"An umpire's worst enemy is a surprise". Just a little reminder to be prepared and keep your focus at all times.

[tornado]

What's the rule on the challenge? The original call was that the Bears' receiver was OOB, no call of juggling.

On the replay the ref said the ball moved when the receiver hit the ground.

I thought you could only reverse the original call. If the original call was that the ball was being juggled...it would stand.

That being said, why does the NFL require a catch to be maintained after a player hits the ground? Why would ongoing play nullify a good catch and 2 feet down in bounds?

Here's the kicker: The NFL also said Monday that if the original call had been a TD, there wasn't enough to reverse the call....

[Edited by tornado on Dec 28th, 2004 at 10:17 PM]

[MJT]

Originally posted by tornado
What's the rule on the challenge? The original call was that the Bears' receiver was OOB, no call of juggling.

On the replay the ref said the ball moved when the receiver hit the ground.

I thought you could only reverse the original call. If the original call was that the ball was being juggled...it would stand.

That being said, why does the NFL require a catch to be maintained after a player hits the ground? Why would ongoing play nullify a good catch and 2 feet down in bounds?

Here's the kicker: The NFL also said Monday that if the original call had been a TD, there wasn't enough to reverse the call....

[Edited by tornado on Dec 28th, 2004 at 10:17 PM]

The original call was "incomplete" and I don't think the official has to say "why" it was incomplete. The ball was never juggled until he hit the ground OOB's.

Why does the NFL require a catch to be maintained after a player hits the ground? That is just the rule they have, although it is only if he lands "out of bounds." Here is the rule, as stated from my post above. NFL rule 8-1-7 supplemental note #4 "the player must maintain possession of the ball when he lands out of bounds." Also NFL rule 8-1-5 note: "if there is any question by the covering official(s) if a pass is complete or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete." It looks as though they got it right.

It would have stood if ruled TD, as you stated, cuz not irrefutable evidence to "overturn" it either way. This was one where they got it right on the field, and the replay backed it up. If they had ruled TD on the field, they would have not been able to overturn it cuz not "irrefutable" evidence so it is good that the official nailed it. The NFL guys are really da** good!!

[Sal Giaco]

I was at the game and MJT is correct, the official just signaled incomplete. I am not a football official but I think if the catch was ruled out of bounds, the official would have waved his arms to the side as well. Since he just ruled incomplete, he didn't have to wave his arms.

Bottom line, they ruled correctly on the play. If you don't like the call, don't blame the officials, blame the league for the rule. Like most controversial calls, the officials are not to blame but rather a poorly written rule that probably needs to be addressed is the culprit. Just my opinion...and it doesn't have much weight since I only officiate baseball and have never worn the "stripes" in my life. Happy New Year and keep working hard on the field!