AFC Championship - was that a TD?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The Lambeau Leap was grandfathered in.

Using a camera stand wasn't.

This.

As far as the incomplete, I wouldn't have a catch under NCAA either.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The Lambeau Leap was grandfathered in.

Using a camera stand wasn't.

Ridiculous. One team gets to keep their "tradition", but everyone else gets penalized.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Ridiculous. One team gets to keep their "tradition", but everyone else gets penalized.

Just another reason to hate the Packers

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by zm1283

And by the way, I think the way the NFL rules are written/enforced are ridiculous when it comes to completing a catch (Like the Calvin Johnson catch last year), but the play in the OP from today was not even close to being a catch IMO.

You can thank instant replay for that. It has been a positive overall for the NFL but it has also made some rules or their interpretations become way too technical. This is an example. I prefer leaving this up to the judgement of the covering official on whether the receiver had control. When you go to frame by frame analysis of the catch in slow motion the interpretations have to become much more technical.

The same thing will happen in baseball when they eventually want to review every tag on a runner or the turn at 2nd base on a double play. They will get very technical on those rules as well.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Ridiculous. One team gets to keep their "tradition", but everyone else gets penalized.

There are several "celebrations" that are grandfathered-in -- it's not just the Lambeau leap.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I prefer leaving this up to the judgement of the covering official on whether the receiver had control.

I may be wrong but replay didn't overturn this call, correct?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I may be wrong but replay didn't overturn this call, correct?

The call was made on the field and was not even replayed.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I may be wrong but replay didn't overturn this call, correct?

Replay did not review this play. It was not a scoring play (no automatic review), and Harbaugh did not challenge it. Had he challenged it, he would have lost.

Clearly the correct call, given the current NFL 'catch' philosophy. 20 years ago, this would have been a TD.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Replay did not review this play. It was not a scoring play (no automatic review), and Harbaugh did not challenge it. Had he challenged it, he would have lost.

Clearly the correct call, given the current NFL 'catch' philosophy. 20 years ago, this would have been a TD.

It was under 2 minutes so it was out of Harbaugh's hands anyway.

And I do not even think this would have been a TD years ago, he never got down his other foot.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by michblue

Under NFL rules.....the call was correct on the field of incomplete pass. A receiver must complete the entire "process" of catching the football on a pass play.

It is a rule that I am sure will be reviewed by the competition committee during the off season because of the number of apparent catches on plays or scoring plays that were waived off throughout the year.

They won't review the rule...they've had the same philosophy/rule on catches for quite some time now...and they've reviewed it too (especially after the correctly ruled incomplete pass by Calvin Johnson) and decided to keep the rule the same. They have the rule because they don't want "cheap" fumbles.

As to the play in question, it was correctly ruled an incomplete pass. The player did not even get a second foot down before the ball was knocked out of his hands and the replay booth was correct in not initiating a review.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What does this mean? Survive the hit or ground?

NFL Rule Book (2011-2012)

Rule 8, Section 1

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball,and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

NFL Rule Book (2011-2012)

Rule 8, Section 1

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball,and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

So if he had gotten that second foot down before the defender knocked the ball out of his hands, would it have been a TD? Or would he have had to take another step?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So if he had gotten that second foot down before the defender knocked the ball out of his hands, would it have been a TD? Or would he have had to take another step?

That meets (a) and (b) so it would be the judgment of the official as to whether (c) was met.

[APG]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So if he had gotten that second foot down before the defender knocked the ball out of his hands, would it have been a TD? Or would he have had to take another step?

It's a judgement call as to whether the player was able to perform a football move. Even if that second foot would have gotten down, the hit was simultaneous to the second foot coming down and by rule, that would be incomplete (look at note 2).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

It's a judgement call as to whether the player was able to perform a football move. Even if that second foot would have gotten down, the hit was simultaneous to the second foot coming down and by rule, that would be incomplete (look at note 2).

The hit could have come a second later after the second foot came down and he had not controlled the ball and made a "football move" it is still incomplete. The feet coming down is only apart of a catch, other things have to happen to complete that catch. And as I stated before, it it would not be ruled a catch an a fumble in the middle of the field, it certainly is not going to be ruled the same at in the end zone.

Peace