Monday Night: Catch

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by gsf23

I've watched the play again, and Wiggins made the catch, turned up field and took at least one step BEFORE contact was made by the defender, another step before he was getting wrapped up, then as he is falling to the ground the defender rips the ball out. He clearly had posession and made a move before the tackle was initiated.

Perhaps you're right about that. But if that's what we're talking about here -- the question whether the football move started before or after the tackle began -- it's just a simple judgment call that could go either way, no different from dozens of close plays every day in the NFL. It's certainly not worthy of Theisman's ire or the attention paid to it.

All that said, as I said, I have no idea if I'm actually correct about the interpretation.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by ToGreySt

Truer words have never been spoken

Joe Theisman would be a great color guy if he didn't say anything. He talks too much. I think he likes to hear himself talk.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Joe Theisman would be a great color guy if he didn't say anything. He talks too much. I think he likes to hear himself talk.

I used to enjoy the old Sunday Night ESPN crew until I listened to a few games while doing something else. When you only listen to what they say and don't watch the game you realize how stupid they are. I also learned quickly Joe T. was the worst of them all. He's even worse when he's on the daily talk shows. Someone needs to have a serious talk with him about the rules because he definitely has no clue.

[Raymond]

I would like to see what the Head of Officiating has to say on NFL Network tonight. Wiggins took 2 full steps and was on his was down after lifting his foot for the 3rd step before the football was ripped out. If that is going to be interpreted as "no possession" then that rule needs to be looked at again in the off-season.

[gsf23]

What I find interesting is that Nemmers didn't even offer an explanation as to why the ruling stood. Every game I have seen this year, when a play was being reviewed, whether it was uphold or over-turned, an explanation was given as to why. Even on the fumble by the Pats later in the game that was also upheld, Nemmers gave an explanation as to why the ruling was upheld.

In the Wiggins instance though, all that was said was ruling on the field stands.

[kdf5]

Please someone post an answer when they know. I'm having an argument with my boss over this and I need to know what the NFL says!!!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Please someone post an answer when they know. I'm having an argument with my boss over this and I need to know what the NFL says!!!

I don't have any transcripts to refer to but I think the gist of Pareira's (sp??) statement was that in real-time speed Wiggins didn't have the ball long enough for a football move. He doesn't want his officials making calls based on the speed of a slow-motion replay.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't have any transcripts to refer to but I think the gist of Pareira's (sp??) statement was that in real-time speed Wiggins didn't have the ball long enough for a football move. He doesn't want his officials making calls based on the speed of a slow-motion replay.

my 13 year old daughter called it that way when the review was in progress. Of course, she's way more into football than most people I know. It wouldn't even surprise me if she takes up officiating. What can you say about her when the first thing she pops on in the morning, every morning, is ESPN?

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Mike L

my 13 year old daughter called it that way when the review was in progress. Of course, she's way more into football than most people I know. It wouldn't even surprise me if she takes up officiating. What can you say about her when the first thing she pops on in the morning, every morning, is ESPN?

Someday she's gonna make some guy really happy.