I'll add, there are often times when a non-official comes on to ask a question about a play or ruling. The majority of the time they accept the answer and move on. The posts that become controversial are the one where the non-official starts making accusations about the pro or college level officials and disregard the information they were given.

You've heard it before, we're all officials and we'll always stick up for each other. Any regular reader of this forum knows that isn't true and we've had many debates about good or bad calls.

Want an example of a bad call in yesterday's Steeler/Ravens game??? Try roughing the kicker called against Baltimore.

That is why I said I did not see the play. But the contact with the ground usually applies to falling on other players and then hitting the ground. Now if I saw the play I might be able to better comment on this situation specifically. I just know that in one of my associations we have a few NFL Officials (one is a deep wing) and several D1 Officials and they show a lot of tape from those levels at camps or meetings that constitute what a catch is or is not. And in a few cases we have access to actual NFL tapes on passing plays and Mike Perreira (sp?) is commenting on those tapes about many things. It is very clear by those tapes that the NFL (and NCAA) wants a catch to be maintained through going to the ground. And that does involve plays where they are falling on other players sometimes.

Peace

You need to make up your mind - are they incompetent or are they cheating to favor certain teams? And who are these "replay officials" that you make reference to?

You have zero credibility. Sorry.

I'll chime in here.

I say this call is a simple coin toss, my first reaction, from behind (BJ) angle, looked like his legs cleared to the Right right at the hit (which would suggest that his body was turned to the side at contact), the view from the side was blocked by McGhee's ducking of his head, now if there was 50 officials on the field hovering with HD camera's and looking at super slow motion on every play they may have seen contact that was very close, I would lean toward helmet to helmet (since that has been a POE in our state/NFHS/ and my HS crew). So I would have probably thrown the flag from the FJ or LJ position (if I had a clear view of the player getting tackled's head).

But the fact that after 6 pages of discussion we are still divided just shows that it was a simple tossup. if the flag was thrown and things worked out differently, (like someone suggested) we would probably have the same response. We can all learn something from this discussion, we hopefully will further define in our own minds our standards for HTH contact and will be on the lookout (in 8 months or so, except for a lucky dozen or so) I digress

Thank you. I'm just tired of football officials sticking up for their own no matter how badly a call is blown. I can promise you that if they would have flagged this play, everyone would be saying what a great call it was.

I'm not sure where the accusations of me "name calling" came from. I don't think I called anyone on here any names.

Another example was in the Florida/Miami game this year. I can't find the video of it online, but a Florida DB went up to intercept a pass by the sideline. He did come down with one foot inbounds, but he never even controlled the ball while going to the ground. The ball ended up laying on the ground next to him. They reviewed it and somehow ruled that he caught the ball and it was an interception. I wish I could find the video, because it really was inexplicable.

And I am tired of people like you that have no experience officiating the sport, telling us what we should think. Or better yet when challenged with references, they get mad and claim people are not using their experience or knowledge to come to a conclusion.

If I recall correctly, there was debate about that play on this site (it might have been the other site) and I do not recall that people across the board stuck up for the officials. Actually, it is clear you do not read this board very much, because we discuss all kinds of plays and give opinions. Those opinions are almost never monolithic or necessarily coming from the same point of view. And it is pretty clear that you did not read this thread either, because many people made comments about the roughing the kicker call that many of us feel was "kicked" (pun intended). I am not sure what board you are reading.

Peace

I know you did not see the play. I am just looking for clarification. Consider these three hypothetical situations:

1. A80 goes up to catch a pass while airborn where he is immediately contacted and tackled
2. A80 catches a pass with both feet already on the ground. He is contacted as he catches the ball and is immediately tackled
3. A80 catches a pass with both feet on the ground and runs another 3 yards before he is contacted and tackled

In each case, A80 maintains possession throughout the catch until his arms contact the ground and the ball comes loose.

My understanding was this was an incomplete pass in situation (a). Someone else has told me it's also an incomplete pass in situation (b) but not (c). Those who have seen the play debate whether (b) or (c) is what happened. I leaned toward (c) but I would have to see it again. Regardless of what actually happened on this play, do you know if the rules support situation (b) as complete or incomplete?

Why aren't you a football official? Still waiting on that answer from you and zm. I know zm is a basketball official.

I'd rule incomplete in (a) and (b), complete in (c).

This is consistent with Mike Pereira's ruling for the NFL.

Thanks Walt and Juggling. That seems to be the consistent answer so I will believe it's true. Now those of you who saw the play, do you think situation (b) or (c) applies on this play. From what I recall, I thought (c) applied. The R had the opportunity to review it on replay so it must have been pretty clear to him that (b) applied. He's a conference final official so I think his abilities are slightly above mine. ;)

That is a terrible misconception. Throughout this thread there are officials who are in disagreement. There are some things you need to understand. First we have a greater respect for someone who has studied the rules and reached the peak of their profession has opposed to someone looking on as a fan. Secondly, we will automatically give some credence to the person who made the call just because of the fact that they were right there on the field in real time and we were not. Another strong factor in this equation is that the league has not issued a fine. Many times there are hits that the officials on the field ruled as being legal, but when reviewed under a microscope by the league officials it may have been deemed illegal.

In my experience no one is more critical of an official than another official. The difference is the training involved. It's like the old adage I can beat the heck out of my brother, but no one else may dare touch him. So in a sense the first reaction will be to defend the official, but the second will be to take another look at the play.

Some people can't seem to see the difference between criticizing an isolated call and calling all NFL officials corrupt incompetent cheaters. :(

Never mind calling ALL football officials incompetent. I'm sorry but that is such a generalized statement that it's almost comedic.

I think as a whole we're patient with fans and coaches that come in here and ask questions unless they are being disrespectful. I tend to not have a lot of patience on here for people that come in here and act like officials as a whole are incompetent, stupid or are cheaters. We deal with enough of that on the field, why do I want to put up with it here?

You don't.

Peace