steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

this is the point of sports.

To be irrational?

The point of this forum is to discuss officiating. We try to keep it reasonable and the conspiracy theories to a minimum.

People who spout about Vegas lines and officials being paid off have ventured off the reservation and have no place here. They are worthy of our scorn and derision.

Tinfoil hats are not the point of sports. Stupidity is not the point of sports.

[PackersFTW]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

To be irrational?

The point of this forum is to discuss officiating. We try to keep it reasonable and the conspiracy theories to a minimum.

People who spout about Vegas lines and officials being paid off have ventured off the reservation and have no place here. They are worthy of our scorn and derision.

Tinfoil hats are not the point of sports. Stupidity is not the point of sports.

i totally agree with everything you said. the thing is, to basically state that somebody who is a huge fan (fanboy) is automatically an irrational idiot is retarded. he basically said that fanboy=idiot, which is totally false.

[newmdref]

I would like to actually ask a rule question as it relates to this situation. (I am a new official so go easy on me) I understand its a touchdown by rule when the receiver is in possession of the football, with both feet down in the field of play and any portion of the ball intersects the EZ line. My question is at what point does the receiver establish possession?? It is my understanding (limited understanding) that the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established. When I watch this play on tape the receiver's first movement(tucking) of the ball takes the ball out of the endzone, if it was ever in, which establishes possession. So...in this situation was possession established a the second it touched his hands?? or after that??. A "What if" situation I have thought of, as it relates to this play, is: the receiver catches the ball just as he did in the game but is hit from behind almost immediately after his hands touch the ball (with both feet in bounds and the ball touching the EZ line) and losses possession of the ball while attemping to tuck it. Is it still a TD or incomplete pass?? Please Advise.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by newmdref

I would like to actually ask a rule question as it relates to this situation. (I am a new official so go easy on me) I understand its a touchdown by rule when the receiver is in possession of the football, with both feet down in the field of play and any portion of the ball intersects the EZ line. My question is at what point does the receiver establish possession?? It is my understanding (limited understanding) that the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established.

Originally Posted by newmdref

When I watch this play on tape the receiver's first movement(tucking) of the ball takes the ball out of the endzone, if it was ever in, which establishes possession. So...in this situation was possession established a the second it touched his hands?? or after that??. A "What if" situation I have thought of, as it relates to this play, is: the receiver catches the ball just as he did in the game but is hit from behind almost immediately after his hands touch the ball (with both feet in bounds and the ball touching the EZ line) and losses possession of the ball while attemping to tuck it. Is it still a TD or incomplete pass?? Please Advise.

Go to the 2:27 mark in this video.

NFL Video Galleries

[JR12]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Go to the 2:27 mark in this video.

NFL Video Galleries

Thanks, very informative.

[newmdref]

Juggling thanks

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JR12

Thanks, very informative.

Originally Posted by newmdref

Juggling thanks

You're welcome.

[ajmc]

Somrthing you really need to think about and understand is the concept of forward progress, and how to respond to, and apply it. The Pittsburg-Ravens TD play is an excellent example.

There are several factors involved which are considered separately and are not necessarily related to, or dependent on each other. Taken separately, a "catch" requires possession of the ball, while there is contact with the ground (2 feet-NFL, 1 foot-College, HS or any other part of the body). For that catch to produce a TD, both factors have to be satisfied and the ball has to break the plane of the goal line. There is no absolute time limitation to completing the sequence.

Forward progress is defined (At the NFHS level) as (NF: 2.15.1) "the end of advancement of the ball in a runner's possession or the forward-most point of the ball when it is fumbled out of bounds towards the opponent's goal and it determines the dead ball spot." Normally, this is an eyeball judgment made without benefit of slide rule, slow motion or stop action photography or computer generated red lines.

(NF: 2.15.2) relates to this specific instance in stating, "When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a defender."

Mixing those points together to fit the play at hand, you have a player, with both feet on the ground, possessing a ball whose front edge clearly broke the plane of the goal line (as determined by replay). The issue of, "the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established" was completed after the receiver was knocked to the ground, out of the EZ, where the catch was ultimately completed.

When a decision is reached that the catch had satisfied all requirements to be considered completed, THEN forward progress is determined by the "furthest point of advancement" reached during the possession process, which in a situation like this did not occur at the same point where forward progress was determined.

At the NFL level, the Referee having benefit of IR technology, determined that the ball did break the goal line plane, and making that determination, as is his responsibility, reversed the call on the field.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

i totally agree with everything you said. the thing is, to basically state that somebody who is a huge fan (fanboy) is automatically an irrational idiot is retarded. he basically said that fanboy=idiot, which is totally false.

No, "fanboy" is a derogatory term. A huge fan is a huge fan, a rabid fan, a hardcore fan. A fanboy is a schmo who usually is an idiot.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

A fanboy is a schmo who usually is an idiot.

Bingo.

One thing I've noticed about most officials, especially people that have been officiating for a while, is that we tend to grow to become fans of the game as a whole as opposed to just a team or two. That's not to say we don't have our favorite teams but I believe the zeal dies down into a deeply rooted admiration for the game we've chosen to officiate as an avocation.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Welpe

One thing I've noticed about most officials, especially people that have been officiating for a while, is that we tend to grow to become fans of the game as a whole as opposed to just a team or two. That's not to say we don't have our favorite teams but I believe the zeal dies down into a deeply rooted admiration for the game we've chosen to officiate as an avocation.

Still a fan of a team, my zeal has died down because I'm older and I realize it's less important than what's for dinner, but still a fan. Just not a fanboy.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Still a fan of a team, my zeal has died down because I'm older and I realize it's less important than what's for dinner, but still a fan. Just not a fanboy.

FanMAN?

[PackersFTW]

Originally Posted by newmdref

I would like to actually ask a rule question as it relates to this situation. (I am a new official so go easy on me) I understand its a touchdown by rule when the receiver is in possession of the football, with both feet down in the field of play and any portion of the ball intersects the EZ line. My question is at what point does the receiver establish possession?? It is my understanding (limited understanding) that the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established. When I watch this play on tape the receiver's first movement(tucking) of the ball takes the ball out of the endzone, if it was ever in, which establishes possession. So...in this situation was possession established a the second it touched his hands?? or after that??. A "What if" situation I have thought of, as it relates to this play, is: the receiver catches the ball just as he did in the game but is hit from behind almost immediately after his hands touch the ball (with both feet in bounds and the ball touching the EZ line) and losses possession of the ball while attemping to tuck it. Is it still a TD or incomplete pass?? Please Advise.

it used to be where you had to make "a football move", but they recently erased that from the rulebook. however, it seems they still use this, because there have been countless times this season where he had clear posession with both feet down, and they called it incomplete. so from all the challenges i have seen since this rule change, it appears they are ruling it the same as they have for decades, which is you have to have the ball for probably at least a half second or so, and you have to start to move. again though, i have seen so many plays where they call it incomplete when it was very clear it was a fumble after possession. i'd say more often than not, split second possessions are incorrectly called incomplete when they had a firm grasp on the ball and both feet down.

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

No, "fanboy" is a derogatory term. A huge fan is a huge fan, a rabid fan, a hardcore fan. A fanboy is a schmo who usually is an idiot.

"Fanboy is a term used to describe any individual who is devoted to a single subject in an emotional or fanatical manner, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession."

unless you consider somebody who is obsessed to be an irrational idiot, i would have to disagree. i hate the term fanboy anyways, it sounds so stupid. anyways, you calling me a fanboy JUST because i said something somebody else claimed i already knew makes no sense. that's why i started this discussion. just because i said something somebody else claimed i already knew doesn't make me an irrationally obsessed idiot. it doesn't even make sense. of course you could have just been responding with a generic statement to the guy who said this and had no idea to what he was responding to.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Bingo.

One thing I've noticed about most officials, especially people that have been officiating for a while, is that we tend to grow to become fans of the game as a whole as opposed to just a team or two. That's not to say we don't have our favorite teams but I believe the zeal dies down into a deeply rooted admiration for the game we've chosen to officiate as an avocation.

I'm still just as huge a fan of my teams. What's changed is I now realize the officials are not out to get them, they are not intentionally making calls AGAINST my team, and I now have a much better understanding of the rules and philosophies.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I'm still just as huge a fan of my teams. What's changed is I now realize the officials are not out to get them, they are not intentionally making calls AGAINST my team, and I now have a much better understanding of the rules and philosophies.

But you still know that Vegas pays the officials off, right?