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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[SportsFan]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

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.

There was a rash of controversial catch rulings at the beginning of this season. Pereira did refer to a "second act" in this Week 2 bonus:
NFL Videos: Official Review Week 2 bonus coverage

In the Jacoby Jones play, he says that after he goes to the ground the "second act" of hitting the ground again completes the catch. The Dante Rosario play is where I have a real problem with his explanation. This was almost exactly like the play in the Super Bowl, except, as Pereira makes sure to mention, the ruling was Rosario was not going to the ground. I logically assumed that Pereira brought this up because if Rosario had been going to the ground, it would have been incompletion. I had always believed the "second act" referred to something occuring after hitting the ground which signified the end of the process.

Aside from all of that, the ruling on the incompletion at 0:40 in this video seems to go against what Pereira said Sunday night.

NFL Videos: NFL GameDay: Ravens-Steelers highlights

Holmes reaching for the endzone looks pretty clearly like a second act to me.

[mbyron]

I sure hope this "second act" business stalls on its way down. That's a ruling designed for replay.

[BigFarns]

I've only been an official for a few years and wouldn't dream of questioning NFL officials. But this call and the subsequent discussions I've had with other officials in my area have definately called into question what I thought I knew about a catch.

I've had a couple philosophies that have guided my called when dealing with catches in the end zone.

1) the player must maintain possession through the whole catch.

2) if it's not a catch at the 50 yard line then it's not a catch in the end zone.

What I saw on this play was possession, then during the 'second act' extending for the goalline a bobble, then possession again that could not be maintained because the ball was knocked away by the leg of the Colt player. I'm hard pressed to say that a few frames worth of possession is a catch otherwise there are literally thousands of catch, turn to run, hit, ball comes out type situations that would now be catches.


My questions are as follows.

-Did I miss something about the slow motion review of the play?
-Are the two philosophies I mentioned flawed in some way?