Monday Night: Catch
 

Did anyone else see the play that replay called incomplete? I'm stunned. For those who didn't, I saw, possession two feet down, tackler p[opped ball out, and fumble out of bounds. Anyone see differently?

When the receiver goes to the ground, they have to establish control. Almost immediately after the player had the ball, he had the defender all over the ball and he dropped the ball before he hit the ground. Remember, NFL Referees review more tape than any of us here and they are feed a philosophy of how to call plays like this. The bottom line is the NFL does not want cheap fumbles on catch/no catch situations. Joe Theisman has no idea what he is talking about as usual. It is not always about steps; it is about control and what the NFL thinks that means.

Peace

So is it your opinion that this receiver did not establish control before the ball came out. I absolutely believe he did. Going to the ground was irrelevent in that the ball was already out.

I Agree with you 100% about Joe T.

I am not an NFL official and I likely never will be. I am just saying that the Competition Committee which comes up with rulings and philosophies of the rules has made plays like this more difficult to call. Remember plays like this have been reviewed over and over again on a weekly basis. I have seen actual NFL officiating tapes with plays similar to this seen as an incomplete pass (I happen to belong to an association that has 3 current NFL officials and one of the most famous Referees in NFL history as a former member). I am not telling what I think, I am sharing with you what I have heard and seen with my own eyes. I can see why you felt there was control, but I see also why the call was ruled incomplete. I am not in position to tell what is right or wrong when I do not work in the NFL.

:D

Peace

Truer words have never been spoken

apparently ESPN spent so much money on getting Monday night football, they couldnt afford to hire a less annoying color commentary than Joe T. I'm not really a fan of Tony K., but he's an angel compared with Joe. He has upset me eversince last year's playoff game with Washington, when he berated the officials for calling a penalty on the guy who spit in the other mans face. Give me a break Joe.

I understand the going to the ground rule. I don't think this was a case where he was going to the ground as he was making a catch. He caught the ball, secured it, turned and took two steps BEFORE he was tackled. He went to the ground because he was being tackled. As he was being tackled, the ball was stripped from him. If you are going to use the going to the ground basis for this ruling, then everytime a receiver has the ball stripped as he is being tackled it should be ruled an incomplete pass like this one was.

I was shocked this was ruled incomplete. I do however agree with JRutledge regarding the NFL philosophy. I have seen this type of play ruled incomplete on a consistent basis. We may not agree with it, but that is the way they want it called. But, the final word will likely be given by Mike Pereira during his weekly NFL network show. I also agree with the comments about Joe T.

You know it would be funny to choose 7 commentators and arrange for them to all show up at the same stadium. Inform them that they are going to do a gig together and that their uniforms are in room 4. Tell them they have 1 hour to get dressed and report to the sideline. As they walk into the room the only uniforms are officiating uniforms. Tell them jerks that since they know so much about officiating that they get to work the first quarter of the game. Maybe not a regular season game, but at least a pre-season game.

Anyone have access to NFL rulebook definitions or case that covers this?

Joe T is the football version of Tim McCarver.

Bob

The nfl rulebook is very difficult to find. I think the rule might be 3-7, but I don't have the rulebook in front of me. That just seems to stick out in my memory from the discussion after the Troy Palamalu situation.

Football is not my sport, but I thought I remember hearing about some clarifications for precisely this issue. As noted already in this thread, the rules (interpretations?) were changed to be more possession friendly -- that is, to maintain possession for the receiving team and avoid difficult gray area fumble/not fumble situations. That, of course, is the irony of last night. The rule that was invoked to make it an incomplete pass was one intended to protect the offense and avoid calling a fumble, but since the ball went out of bounds (instead of in the hands of a defender) the rule worked against the offensive team.

Anyway, as I thought I understood what was being discussed after the rule changes, there are two situations -- first is where the player establishes a legal catch before a tackle starts and the second is where the tackle is in progress before the catch has been established. Not sure if I'm saying that right, but essentially, if the player possesses the ball and establishes both feet in bounds, and then makes the infamaous "football move," it's a catch, and a subsequent loss of posession before the end of the play will be a fumble. The caveat, though, is where a player on the other team begins a tackle before the catch is established. In this second situation, the player needs to maintain control throughout, down to the ground.

Seems like Belichick knew the rule and quickly reminded the official on the spot, and it was upheld.

Or I'm crazy and just misremembering all this and it was a questionable call.

NFL rule 3-2-7:
A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completly on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground if there is anby doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession.
A catch is made when a palyer inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick or fumble in flight.

8-1-5:
Any forward pass legal or illegal becomes incompelte and the ball is dead immediately if the pass strikes the ground or goes out of bounds.

Sorry for the misspells. I'm on my way out the door.

Of course, it makes one wonder what would have been the call if the play had happened in the end zone.

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.

Good point 3will. The endzone, in the NFL, is officiated by the officials on the field the same way as any other place on the field, but it's officiated differently in the replay booth. The guys on the field will still call that pass incomplete but replay may reverse it to a TD.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

Wiggins play...
 

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.

Well duh
 

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.