Two questions

[SamG]

First one from the Super Bowl...

On NO's 2 point attempt, receiver catches the ball in his hands, swings around, putting it over the goal line, as he falls, starts to bobble it and gets kicked out of his hands by the defender. Originally ruled incomplete, overturned on review. My question... commentator says receiver needed to hold possession through contact with the ground (although he wasn't touched by a defender until after the ball broke the plane), and it was only because reaching for the goal line was a "2nd move" that the call was overturned.

I thought a) since he had possession when the ball broke the plane, AND he had no contact with the defender, the try is good at that point. Am I wrong?

Second question...

Indy does this on a regular basis... offense sets at the line, Manning changes the play, linemen, WR, RBs, everybody moves (turns, steps up, whatever) in order to hear the new call. Presumably that's allowed because they have time to get set again before the snap. However, why wouldn't a normal "false start" by a lineman give him the chance to reset before the snap? Just curious.

Thanks

[mbyron]

1. I have no idea who supplied the "second move" stuff to Simms, but I've never heard that before. I was surprised that this was ruled a catch, since possession did not survive contact with the ground.

2. The Indy linemen are at the line in a 2-point stance. Until their hands touch, they can still shift. I noticed one possession with 2 TE's where the ends' hands were down -- they stayed down when everyone else stood to hear an audible.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. I have no idea who supplied the "second move" stuff to Simms, but I've never heard that before. I was surprised that this was ruled a catch, since possession did not survive contact with the ground.

2. The Indy linemen are at the line in a 2-point stance. Until their hands touch, they can still shift. I noticed one possession with 2 TE's where the ends' hands were down -- they stayed down when everyone else stood to hear an audible.

The possession survived contact with the ground, but not the subsequent contact with the Colts player. By then, the points had already been scored. This is one in the middle of the field that would've been ruled down by contact (by replay, of course). Live it sure did look like an incompletion and even the one replay seemed to support that, but the one replay was pretty clear that he was (1) down with (2) both hands around the ball when down on the ground with the ball breaking the plane.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The possession survived contact with the ground, but not the subsequent contact with the Colts player. By then, the points had already been scored. This is one in the middle of the field that would've been ruled down by contact (by replay, of course). Live it sure did look like an incompletion and even the one replay seemed to support that, but the one replay was pretty clear that he was (1) down with (2) both hands around the ball when down on the ground with the ball breaking the plane.

Well, it's kinda moot, but that's not what I saw. When he hit the ground he lost control of the ball, and before he could recover control the defender kicked the ball out. Perhaps there was a moment when something other than a hand or foot touched thr ground and before he juggled the ball, but IMO he did not go to the ground with possession.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the rules committee revisit this specific issue, namely the definition of a catch on a scoring play.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Well, it's kinda moot, but that's not what I saw. When he hit the ground he lost control of the ball, and before he could recover control the defender kicked the ball out.

We'll disagree then. That's not what I saw at all. Neither did Green.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

We'll disagree then. That's not what I saw at all. Neither did Green.

I agree with you. I first would have disagreed, but when I saw the replay twice, it was clearly a catch.

Peace

[HossHumard]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree with you. I first would have disagreed, but when I saw the replay twice, it was clearly a catch.

Peace

Agreed...the receiver clearly had secured possession after the bobble before the defender's legs knocked the ball out.

I thought the crew had a pretty good game and let the teams play. It was midway through the third quarter when I thought to myself, "have I even seen a flag yet this game?"

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Well, it's kinda moot, but that's not what I saw. When he hit the ground he lost control of the ball, and before he could recover control the defender kicked the ball out. Perhaps there was a moment when something other than a hand or foot touched thr ground and before he juggled the ball, but IMO he did not go to the ground with possession.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the rules committee revisit this specific issue, namely the definition of a catch on a scoring play.

If you watch the replay again you will see that prior to the defender kicking the ball that Moore resecured the ball with both hands.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If you watch the replay again you will see that prior to the defender kicking the ball that Moore resecured the ball with both hands.

And held it.

I thought this was really good work.

The official was right there looking at it and made the call.

As was discussed, from the one angle and run in "real-time" you could see how it may have been seen as a bobble.

But, from that other angle you can see how he held it "the second time" before it was kicked out.

Key call - I think they got it right.

[SamG]

So does the receiver need to retain possession through contact with the ground (even with no defender touching him)?

[ajmc]

Watching the play live and the repeated slow motions, one inescabale fact emerged; the covering official was in exactly the perfect position to see what was happening. He was focused directly on the ball and the goal line and if he was any closer, he would have been in the way.

We all know that real time and slow motion present different perspectives, and that as you slow the motion down you reach a point (closer to a frame by frame) where you cannot determine any type of movement and slow anything down to the point there is no movement observable. In those instances, the view from real time observation seems to provide a better perspective

Other than slowing the motion down to a point where motion may have been indecipheral, and considering the position, and view and focus of the covering official, as evident in any and all the replays I would find it hard to suggest "conclusive" evidence sufficient to justify overturning the call existed.

Not that it turned out to have made any actual difference, although at the time it seemed significant, I don't think this application of instant replay advanced the technology, which was supposed to prevent obvious errors. This was more an example of a live official, in perfect position with a completely unobstructed view focusing on the exact most significant detail of a bang-bang call, making an instantaneous judgment and instantly signalling, and selling, his decision. Exactly what he is paid to do, the way he is paid to do it rather than something to be overturned based on arguable microscopic review.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

We'll disagree then. That's not what I saw at all. Neither did Green.

I saw it the same way you did, Rich. Not surprised it was initially ruled incomplete, and not surprised it was overturned. IMO, he had control until the ball was kicked by the defender.

[SportsFan]

It seems most people who agree with the overturn saw it as Moore regaining control after losing it upon hitting the ground. This is not, however, what Scott Green ruled (at least according to Mike Pereira).

From NBC Sports:

"Here's the official explanation from outgoing NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira (via NFL spokesman Greg Aiello): "By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch and the ball is dead when it breaks the plane."

Apparently, even if you go to the ground in the act of making a catch, you do not have to maintain control throughout, as long as you make a "second act." It irks me that Pereira has never mentioned this (that I know of) in his Official Review segment on NFL Total Access. I hope when Carl Johnson takes over, he is a bit more thorough in helping NFL fans understand the rules of the game.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by SportsFan

It irks me that Pereira has never mentioned this (that I know of) in his Official Review segment on NFL Total Access. I hope when Carl Johnson takes over, he is a bit more thorough in helping NFL fans understand the rules of the game.

Has the topic of "second act" come up before on an Official Review segment? In every sport there are tons of approved rulings and interpretations the general public doesn't know about until the situation happens in a game. I think Pereira and the NFL do just fine in trying to explain the rules to non-officials.

[Texas Aggie]

I was evaluating this under NCAA rules. At first, I didn't think it was a completed pass since I thought the player was airborne when he caught it (though very low to the ground). But if you look at the replay, he has his left foot on the ground when he catches the ball and then moves it beyond the plane of the goal line. At that point, TD. I don't think anything else really matters, as the control portion of the rule (or AR) applies to airborne players.