PDA

View Full Version : The Catch?



wazzy
01-07-2006, 09:36 PM
So I was watching the Tampa Bay/Washington game the score is 17-10 and

Tampa Bay goes long and gets the TD. Then they call it incomplete and its

challenged and they still call it incomplete. Everyone who was watching the

game knows what catch I am talking about I think it was a completion and it

was a BS call. I just want to hear your guys opinion on it.

AquaInferno
01-07-2006, 09:42 PM
The ball was moving non stop in his arms, that was no catch.

TotoreMexico
01-07-2006, 09:44 PM
Difficult to say :confused: , but I think it was incomplete...

Hades
01-07-2006, 09:45 PM
yeah that was the correct call, the ball was movin and hit the ground

wazzy
01-07-2006, 09:45 PM
The ball was moving non stop in his arms, that was no catch.

You can't say it was moving non-stop look at the catch on the highlights later and turn the tv off so you don't let the commentators hypnotize you! He made that catch and then his arm caused it to come loose. I admit it was a little loose before but he took 2 steps and his knee hit the ground before it really started coming loose IMO.

wazzy
01-07-2006, 09:45 PM
Maybe I am alone on this one and just wanted Tampa to win!

FinsNCanes
01-07-2006, 09:57 PM
Never had posession.

finsmx
01-07-2006, 09:59 PM
I thought for sure that it was a TD, but I wanted the bucs to lose so good call :D

Alex44
01-07-2006, 10:02 PM
He had the ball and took 2 steps

The ball came out as he was going to the ground

To have possesion in thr field of play you must have 2 feet down and clear controll of the ball before hitting the ground

Now he caught it, had controll for both feet THEN was tackled and lost it, it should be a TD

Its like if he caught it at the 1 yard line and got two feet down and lost it going into the endzone, it would be a fumble, *or a challenge on whether he had possesion crossing the goal line*

The way I saw it he had two feet and possesion of the ball it should have been a catch

Metal Panda
01-07-2006, 10:09 PM
So I was watching the Tampa Bay/Washington game the score is 17-10 and

Tampa Bay goes long and gets the TD. Then they call it incomplete and its

challenged and they still call it incomplete. Everyone who was watching the

game knows what catch I am talking about I think it was a completion and it

was a BS call. I just want to hear your guys opinion on it.

It was a correct call. When you have to go to the ground to make a catch, you must control it the entire way, even to the ground. If there's any movement or it comes loose, it's incomplete. It was the correct call and they call it that way for every team in the league (it happened to Miami in '02).

If you're to catch it standing up and run it, then fall and have it come loose, that's different.

Metal Panda
01-07-2006, 10:09 PM
You can't say it was moving non-stop look at the catch on the highlights later and turn the tv off so you don't let the commentators hypnotize you! He made that catch and then his arm caused it to come loose. I admit it was a little loose before but he took 2 steps and his knee hit the ground before it really started coming loose IMO.

Incorrect. It was moving before the knee hit (saw it several times). Keep in mind some of us have DVR.

Doesn't matter anyway. As the officials explain, if it pops out when you hit the ground...incomplete. Keep in mind the play was reviewed.

Not sure why you all disagree with the call, this rule isn't exactly new. If you go to the ground to make the catch, you have to have control all the way into the ground. This one was pretty obvious. This happened in 2002 in the dolphins/jets game too, Chris Chambers.

Metal Panda
01-07-2006, 10:11 PM
He had the ball and took 2 steps

The ball came out as he was going to the ground

To have possesion in thr field of play you must have 2 feet down and clear controll of the ball before hitting the ground

Now he caught it, had controll for both feet THEN was tackled and lost it, it should be a TD

Its like if he caught it at the 1 yard line and got two feet down and lost it going into the endzone, it would be a fumble, *or a challenge on whether he had possesion crossing the goal line*

The way I saw it he had two feet and possesion of the ball it should have been a catch

Wrong. That's not how it works.

Whether you're in the open field or being tackled in the end zone, if you have to go to the ground to make a catch, you have to control it the entire way. This was explained properly by the officiating crew.

I'm not sure why you believe the call was wrong. This rule has been in effect since the 2000 season (because of the Bucs-Rams playoff game). It's been called in several other games, too.

Alex44
01-07-2006, 10:13 PM
Wrong. That's not how it works.

Whether you're in the open field or being tackled in the end zone, if you have to go to the ground to make a catch, you have to control it the entire way. This was explained properly by the officiating crew.

I'm not sure why you believe the call was wrong. This rule has been in effect since the 2000 season (because of the Bucs-Rams playoff game). It's been called in several other games, too.


Because he was 'going to the ground' he was upright and then slid to the ground, he was upright for 2 steps before he went down

Metal Panda
01-07-2006, 10:17 PM
Because he was 'going to the ground' he was upright and then slid to the ground, he was upright for 2 steps before he went down

That does not matter.

Did you not listen to what the officials said when they explained the call?

If you are being tackled either on the field or in the end zone, there can be no movement of the ball, it must be controlled.

didn't always used to be the case, but they changed it.

Keep on arguing all night it was a catch, the other 99% of the world knows it wasn't.

Alex44
01-07-2006, 10:20 PM
That does not matter.

Did you not listen to what the officials said when they explained the call?

If you are being tackled either on the field or in the end zone, there can be no movement of the ball, it must be controlled.

didn't always used to be the case, but they changed it.

Keep on arguing all night it was a catch, the other 99% of the world knows it wasn't.

If what was explained is what happend then yes thats right

BUT

That wasnt how it happend at all

The ball was not moving at all untill after he had already established possesion of it, and until after his knees hit the ground

Metal Panda
01-07-2006, 10:21 PM
If what was explained is what happend then yes thats right

BUT

That wasnt how it happend at all

The ball was not moving at all untill after he had already established possesion of it, and until after his knees hit the ground

Wrong, and wrong again.

The ball was moving before his knee hit the ground. I'll even go back and watch the play for you again if you want.

Plus the official explained the knee didn't matter.

Alex44
01-07-2006, 10:23 PM
Wrong, and wrong again.

The ball was moving before his knee hit the ground. I'll even go back and watch the play for you again if you want.

He was moving the ball

But

The ball wasnt moving

He was shifting it in his hands which is perfectly fine, after that he lost it

Metal Panda
01-07-2006, 10:27 PM
He was moving the ball

But

The ball wasnt moving

He was shifting it in his hands which is perfectly fine, after that he lost it

I give up. As the official explained, the knee didn't matter. If you go to the ground and lose control...it's not a catch.

RunningBackGuru
01-07-2006, 10:37 PM
It was incomplete for sure. No matter what, the ball touched the ground.

Metal Panda
01-07-2006, 10:40 PM
"When you are going to the ground, even though two feet hit and an elbow hits, when you hit the ground, you have to maintain control of the ball," league officiating director Mike Pereira said. "It's the same at the 50-yard line as it is in the end zone. It's the same inbounds as it is out of bounds. Even though the feet come down first, if the ball comes loose, which it did here, if you don't maintain control of the ball, then it's an incomplete pass."

that was when it happened to Miami in 2002.

King Felix
01-07-2006, 11:37 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

thats all you need

PressCoverage
01-07-2006, 11:39 PM
Maybe I am alone on this one and just wanted Tampa to win!

no, you're not alone... i didn't think it was loose when his second foot hit down either...

King Felix
01-07-2006, 11:44 PM
u need to come down with control doesnt amtter about 2 feet in that situation

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 12:13 AM
:yeahthat: That was only explained by the officials in great detail....have to control it while catching it and going down

King Felix
01-08-2006, 12:17 AM
seriously its not hard to comprehend

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 12:18 AM
seriously its not hard to comprehend

You mean it shouldn't be :)

Amars
01-08-2006, 12:18 AM
Incomplete pass

King Felix
01-08-2006, 12:21 AM
You mean it shouldn't be :)

yah lol

painnotpleasure
01-08-2006, 12:29 AM
I did think it was incomplete but even if I didn't, it would be very hard to overturn that without an conclusive evidence. I think the biggest thing was that it was ruled an incomplete. When I first saw it, I thought it was a TD and that it would most likely go into OT, but after the replay, didn't look he had posession throughout the whole catch.

tylerdolphin
01-08-2006, 12:32 AM
Great throw by Simms though from what I have heard

unifiedtheory
01-08-2006, 01:12 AM
Mike Carey did a very good job of explaining his ruling and the reason behind his ruling.

Watch the play and learn the rule...if you come back and tell me that it was still a catch then I think people would have a hard time convincing you water is wet.

pigskinguy
01-08-2006, 01:43 AM
Maybe I am alone on this one and just wanted Tampa to win!

Exactly. That was no catch. No even close IMO. Never had possesion.

twg76
01-08-2006, 01:46 AM
The ref didn't explain ****. He said, and I quote, "Even though the receiver's knees touched the ground, the ruling on the field stands." Then one of the goober announcers said, "That was an excellent job of explaining the call." It was not an excellent job of explaining the call. All the ref basically said was that it was an incomplete pass. He just said it differently.

The pass was completed, and it was a TD. That is the bottom line. The receiver caught the ball, protected it with one hand, the DB never touched the ball, and after his elbow hit the ground, the ball popped out. The ground made that ball pop out. Once again, the receiver took two steps after the ball was in his hands, and his knees went down while the ball was still in his hands. He protected the ball with one hand. All of this occurred before the ball came out. Only after he hit the ground, did the ball pop out. Those are the facts.

It was a bad call. It was unfortunate for Tampa Bay. I thought for sure they were going to call it a catch. It would have been fitting to the game as well. The Redskins couldn't put any points on the board on offense. Aside from those turnovers in the first quarter, TB shut the Redskins down. They were lucky to get that win.

The Seahawks will beat the Redskins next week, so it makes little difference for them. It just sucks to see the refs blow another big call.

TokyoFishFan
01-08-2006, 02:20 AM
Ball movement = the receiver isn't in control of the ball. The ball is plainly sliding up his chest a little bit as he's coming down. I'll agree that it was "close."

Bottom line is the ball came out, the officials made the correct ruling (and making those hard calls are what the refs are paid to do), and Tampa Bay lost the ball game.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 02:23 AM
The ref didn't explain ****. He said, and I quote, "Even though the receiver's knees touched the ground, the ruling on the field stands." Then one of the goober announcers said, "That was an excellent job of explaining the call." It was not an excellent job of explaining the call. All the ref basically said was that it was an incomplete pass. He just said it differently.



And you quote? You could get sued for libel if you ever put that in print, because that is not what the official said. The official basically said it didn't matter that his knee hit the ground and referenced that since the ball came loose as the player hit the ground, just as it would have been in the regular field of play, it was an incomplete pass by rule. You obviously weren't listening.




The pass was completed, and it was a TD. That is the bottom line.



No, it wasn't.




The receiver caught the ball, protected it with one hand, the DB never touched the ball, and after his elbow hit the ground, the ball popped out. The ground made that ball pop out. Once again, the receiver took two steps after the ball was in his hands, and his knees went down while the ball was still in his hands. He protected the ball with one hand. All of this occurred before the ball came out. Only after he hit the ground, did the ball pop out. Those are the facts.

It was a bad call. It was unfortunate for Tampa Bay. I thought for sure they were going to call it a catch. It would have been fitting to the game as well. The Redskins couldn't put any points on the board on offense. Aside from those turnovers in the first quarter, TB shut the Redskins down. They were lucky to get that win.

The Seahawks will beat the Redskins next week, so it makes little difference for them. It just sucks to see the refs blow another big call.

You are wrong. Mike Pereira is going to stand by this one. It was the correct call. Go back and re-read the rules.

"When you are going to the ground, even though two feet hit and an elbow hits, when you hit the ground, you have to maintain control of the ball," league officiating director Mike Pereira said. "It's the same at the 50-yard line as it is in the end zone. It's the same inbounds as it is out of bounds. Even though the feet come down first, if the ball comes loose, which it did here, if you don't maintain control of the ball, then it's an incomplete pass."

I suggest you read that, over and over again. It's not even in reference to this play, but shows why you are wrong. But I guess I'll take your word for it, since you're an internet message board poster who obviously knows more than the head of officiating does :lol:

Majpain
01-08-2006, 02:44 AM
sorry he never maintained possession.It was a obvious call.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 02:46 AM
Again, SHOULD be obvious.

To all but about four people in this thread :)

Majpain
01-08-2006, 02:47 AM
He had the ball and took 2 steps

The ball came out as he was going to the ground

To have possesion in thr field of play you must have 2 feet down and clear controll of the ball before hitting the ground

Now he caught it, had controll for both feet THEN was tackled and lost it, it should be a TD

Its like if he caught it at the 1 yard line and got two feet down and lost it going into the endzone, it would be a fumble, *or a challenge on whether he had possesion crossing the goal line*

The way I saw it he had two feet and possesion of the ball it should have been a catch

dont mean to double post.It doesn't matter they explained it perfectly if your getting tackled in the end zone it doesn't matter if you get 2 feet inbounds you must control the ball the whole time while you are coming down with the ball.It was a great call.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 02:48 AM
Here's one more for good measure, since I'm sure everybody keeps ignoring this quote:

"When you are going to the ground, even though two feet hit and an elbow hits, when you hit the ground, you have to maintain control of the ball," league officiating director Mike Pereira said. "It's the same at the 50-yard line as it is in the end zone. It's the same inbounds as it is out of bounds. Even though the feet come down first, if the ball comes loose, which it did here, if you don't maintain control of the ball, then it's an incomplete pass."

:D

Majpain
01-08-2006, 02:49 AM
The ref didn't explain ****. He said, and I quote, "Even though the receiver's knees touched the ground, the ruling on the field stands." Then one of the goober announcers said, "That was an excellent job of explaining the call." It was not an excellent job of explaining the call. All the ref basically said was that it was an incomplete pass. He just said it differently.

The pass was completed, and it was a TD. That is the bottom line. The receiver caught the ball, protected it with one hand, the DB never touched the ball, and after his elbow hit the ground, the ball popped out. The ground made that ball pop out. Once again, the receiver took two steps after the ball was in his hands, and his knees went down while the ball was still in his hands. He protected the ball with one hand. All of this occurred before the ball came out. Only after he hit the ground, did the ball pop out. Those are the facts.

It was a bad call. It was unfortunate for Tampa Bay. I thought for sure they were going to call it a catch. It would have been fitting to the game as well. The Redskins couldn't put any points on the board on offense. Aside from those turnovers in the first quarter, TB shut the Redskins down. They were lucky to get that win.

The Seahawks will beat the Redskins next week, so it makes little difference for them. It just sucks to see the refs blow another big call.

ugh He said "the recievers knees were hitting the ground as he was losing possession of the ball".Jeez last time I will explain it.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 02:53 AM
mcteems probably had money on the game or something

finfansince72
01-08-2006, 03:02 AM
I think the play was a lot closer than some of you are saying. I can accept the refs explaination of the call but it was close. The back and forth here is a little goofy.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 03:07 AM
I don't see what was "close" about it. Yea, it looked that way before we saw the replay, but on the replay the ball clearly moved around a lot and grazed the ground.

It was exactly the same play they called against Chris Cha....

Oh dear I'm repeating myself. I think I've had enough of this thread.

B-LO, BABY
01-08-2006, 04:30 AM
This is the TUCK RULE 2006. He caught the ball, took two steps, then fell to his knee, all before "losing possession." Touchdown. The NFL is the most over-officiated game in professional sports.

HysterikiLL
01-08-2006, 06:31 AM
I actually thought it was a TD. At first, he didn't have possession but then I though he had possession between his arm and his body before his knee hit. The commentators were being idiots as usual so I don't know.

finfansince72
01-08-2006, 08:21 AM
This is the TUCK RULE 2006. He caught the ball, took two steps, then fell to his knee, all before "losing possession." Touchdown. The NFL is the most over-officiated game in professional sports.

I agree, I mean the refs made the correct call according to the rules but the rules are overkill. A guy catches the ball takes two steps then bobbles then falls to a knee and its not a catch by rule? OK. Guess they used the rule properly, just like the tuck rule was called properly. Everyone on the board cried whe it happened to Chambers and Brady, guess its cool as long as its not Miami or infavor of a rival right?

SCall13
01-08-2006, 08:22 AM
Wrong, and wrong again.

The ball was moving before his knee hit the ground. I'll even go back and watch the play for you again if you want.

Plus the official explained the knee didn't matter.


I watched it over and over and over and I thought his knee hit just before the ball moved. But since the replay was inconclusive, they couldn't overturn it anyway.

SCall13
01-08-2006, 08:24 AM
I agree, I mean the refs made the correct call according to the rules but the rules are overkill. A guy catches the ball takes two steps then bobbles then falls to a knee and its not a catch by rule? OK. Guess they used the rule properly, just like the tuck rule was called properly. Everyone on the board cried whe it happened to Chambers and Brady, guess its cool as long as its not Miami or infavor of a rival right?


Yep, I thought he took two steps as well. The rule is screwed up. If a player takes two steps, it should be catch.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 12:00 PM
This is the TUCK RULE 2006. He caught the ball, took two steps, then fell to his knee, all before "losing possession." Touchdown. The NFL is the most over-officiated game in professional sports.

I can agree that the game of football has more nuances than any other. But still, if they're in writing, you must uphold them until they're changed.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 12:01 PM
I actually thought it was a TD. At first, he didn't have possession but then I though he had possession between his arm and his body before his knee hit. The commentators were being idiots as usual so I don't know.

:rolleyes:

THE KNEE HITTING...DOES...NOT...MATTER.

repeat after me.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 12:01 PM
I watched it over and over and over and I thought his knee hit just before the ball moved. But since the replay was inconclusive, they couldn't overturn it anyway.

the official never said the evidence was inconclusive. It was pretty clear it wasn't a catch. And I repeat for the gazillionth time...the official (and Pereira) make it clear that it doesn't matter whether the ball moved before or after his knee hit.

SCall13
01-08-2006, 12:22 PM
the official never said the evidence was inconclusive. It was pretty clear it wasn't a catch. And I repeat for the gazillionth time...the official (and Pereira) make it clear that it doesn't matter whether the ball moved before or after his knee hit.


You're insistence is not going to change other people's opinions. In MY mind and others, whether YOU like it or not, it looked like it could have been ruled a catch. If it were in the open field and called a fumble, would it have been overruled and called incomplete? It looked to me like he caught the ball, maintained control for TWO steps before his knee touched just before the ball came loose. You don't have to agree. That's how I saw it. The ref didn't find any conclusive evidence to overtuen the call on the field. He doesn't have to say he it was inconclusive. He just had to make the call. His call was correct because of the rule of instant replay. But the call on the field was questionable.

Alex44
01-08-2006, 12:24 PM
You're insistence is not going to change other people's opinions. In MY mind and others, whether YOU like it or not, it looked like it could have been ruled a catch. If it were in the open field and called a fumble, would it have been overruled and called incomplete? It looked to me like he caught the ball, maintained control for TWO steps before his knee touched just before the ball came loose. You don't have to agree. That's how I saw it. The ref didn't find any conclusive evidence to overtuen the call on the field. He doesn't have to say he it was inconclusive. He just had to make the call. His call was correct because of the rule of instant replay. But the call on the field was questionable.

I saw it the same way you did

As soon as your knee hits and you have established possesion the play is OVER

You cant fumble, you cant drop it *because you have possesion already established*

It was a catch through my eyes

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 12:45 PM
You're insistence is not going to change other people's opinions. In MY mind and others, whether YOU like it or not, it looked like it could have been ruled a catch. If it were in the open field and called a fumble, would it have been overruled and called incomplete? It looked to me like he caught the ball, maintained control for TWO steps before his knee touched just before the ball came loose. You don't have to agree. That's how I saw it. The ref didn't find any conclusive evidence to overtuen the call on the field. He doesn't have to say he it was inconclusive. He just had to make the call. His call was correct because of the rule of instant replay. But the call on the field was questionable.

The official's comments made it clear that it was not overturned not due to the fact that it was 'inconclusive', but that the visual evidence they saw was clear. He gave specific details as to what happened and why that made it not a catch.

The call on the field was not questionable and I doubt the Bucs even send a complaint to the league on it. Hell they barely even complained about it after it was upheld.

And I'm getting sick and tired of repeating myself--having the ball for two steps had NO BEARING on whether it is a catch or not. Mike Pereira stated this in the quote I pos....

Forget it. I give up. You obviously haven't read it the first time, the second time, the third time, the fourth time, or the fifth time, so why bother posting it a sixth time.

Alex44
01-08-2006, 12:48 PM
The official's comments made it clear that it was not overturned not due to the fact that it was 'inconclusive', but that the visual evidence they saw was clear. He gave specific details as to what happened and why that made it not a catch.

The call on the field was not questionable and I doubt the Bucs even send a complaint to the league on it. Hell they barely even complained about it after it was upheld.

And I'm getting sick and tired of repeating myself--having the ball for two steps had NO BEARING on whether it is a catch or not. Mike Pereira stated this in the quote I pos....

Forget it. I give up. You obviously haven't read it the first time, the second time, the third time, the fourth time, or the fifth time, so why bother posting it a sixth time.

Once You have clear possesion of the ball in the endzone the play is over regardless of what happens after

He had that clear possesion before he even started to go to the ground, so the rule of maintaining possesion should have no effect on this play

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 12:51 PM
Once You have clear possesion of the ball in the endzone the play is over regardless of what happens after

He had that clear possesion before he even started to go to the ground, so the rule of maintaining possesion should have no effect on this play

for the love of god...

you have to maintain possession if you're being tackled in the end zone, or in the open field, all the way into the ground. This has been stated I can't remember how many countless times in this thread (which is starting to get irritating), and the game itself.

So yes, it does matter, and no, it was not a catch.

SCall13
01-08-2006, 12:52 PM
The official's comments made it clear that it was not overturned not due to the fact that it was 'inconclusive', but that the visual evidence they saw was clear. He gave specific details as to what happened and why that made it not a catch.

The call on the field was not questionable and I doubt the Bucs even send a complaint to the league on it. Hell they barely even complained about it after it was upheld.

And I'm getting sick and tired of repeating myself--having the ball for two steps had NO BEARING on whether it is a catch or not. Mike Pereira stated this in the quote I pos....

Forget it. I give up. You obviously haven't read it the first time, the second time, the third time, the fourth time, or the fifth time, so why bother posting it a sixth time.

Yeah, why bother posting YOUR OPINION more than once. We have already read it. The referee doesn't have to say whether the call was inconclusive or not. He just had to state his ruling on the play, which I was the right one based on how the rules work. I'm not defending the Bucs. I didn't want them to win, so it isn't like my opinion of it is biased. The fact is, open field rules and endzone rules are different from each other and vague. Had that been in the open field and called a fumble, the ruling would have probably been overturned and the player called down on the play.

Alex44
01-08-2006, 12:55 PM
for the love of god...

you have to maintain possession if you're being tackled in the end zone, or in the open field, all the way into the ground. This has been stated I can't remember how many countless times in this thread (which is starting to get irritating), and the game itself.

So yes, it does matter, and no, it was not a catch.


That rule doesnt apply here because he was running before he started to be tackled, the rule only comes into play if the tackle is simultanious to the catch which it wasnt, if anything its a fumble at that point, as if you were running down the field with clear possesion and then were tackled

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 12:56 PM
The fact is, open field rules and endzone rules are different from each other and vague.

edited because I do not like the original tone of the post.

SCall13
01-08-2006, 01:01 PM
THEY ARE NOT. have you read the damn Pereira quote once?

to hell with this. you all are clearly not listening or reading a thing. Good day.


:rasp: OK

SCall13
01-08-2006, 01:05 PM
In the open field there is a rule that says a player who catches the ball and makes a football move before dropping the ball has fumbled. This includes taking two steps after the catch. The ball WAS caught, he took two steps (TD already), THEN his knee hit - the ball almost simultaneously came loose, but it looked to ME like his knee was down just BEFORE the ball came loose. It shouldn't have come to the knee down anyway since two steps were taken with possession of the ball.

Alex44
01-08-2006, 01:08 PM
In the open field there is a rule that says a player who catches the ball and makes a football move before dropping the ball has fumbled. This includes taking two steps after the catch. The ball WAS caught, he took two steps (TD already), THEN his knee hit - the ball almost simultaneously came loose, but it looked to ME like his knee was down just BEFORE the ball came loose. It shouldn't have come to the knee down anyway since two steps were taken with possession of the ball.

Exactly

Also him going down wasnt simultanious to the catch so the rule of maintaining possesion doesnt matter since he had already established possesion in the endzone which is a TD regardless of what happens after

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 01:13 PM
Just wait a few days until Pereira upholds the ruling. and he isn't going to lie...the league stated the call in the Giants-49ers game in 2002 was made incorrectly despite the officials and announcers insisting it was correct (the blown pass interference).

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 01:17 PM
Just watched the play on dvr again. He was being tackled before a single foot even hit the end zone and was on his way down already.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 01:18 PM
That rule doesnt apply here because he was running before he started to be tackled, the rule only comes into play if the tackle is simultanious to the catch which it wasnt, if anything its a fumble at that point, as if you were running down the field with clear possesion and then were tackled

It was simultaneous. Unless you think video lies, I just watched the replay on DVR three times. He was in the opponents grasp as he was catching the ball and before he had a single foot down.

I could always watch it again for you to see if it changes and maybe this time Mickey Mouse comes onto the field and intercepts the ball.

Nappy Roots
01-08-2006, 01:19 PM
its hard to believe people are arguing this play. its the right rule. he was not "running" when he caught the ball. he didnt have perfect balance.


he was going to the ground in an attempt to catch the ball


thats plain and simple. although i dont agree with RobFins about the ball moving the entire time, it still was the right call on the field. the Umpire explained it perfectly, there shouldnt even be any buts about it.

Metal Panda
01-08-2006, 01:22 PM
its hard to believe people are arguing this play. its the right rule. he was not "running" when he caught the ball. he didnt have perfect balance.


he was going to the ground in an attempt to catch the ball


thats plain and simple. although i dont agree with RobFins about the ball moving the entire time, it still was the right call on the field. the Umpire explained it perfectly, there shouldnt even be any buts about it.

Nah it didn't move the "entire time", only as he was going down.

Shepard even laughed about it afterwards.

Majpain
01-08-2006, 01:39 PM
This is the TUCK RULE 2006. He caught the ball, took two steps, then fell to his knee, all before "losing possession." Touchdown. The NFL is the most over-officiated game in professional sports.

omfg.IT DOESN"T MATTER.If you are getting tackled in the end it doesn't flipping matter if he gets 20 steps in the end zone or even both his knees our down he must maintain POSSESION THE WHOLE TIME HE NEVER DID.Now can we give this a rest?

Majpain
01-08-2006, 01:41 PM
Does anyone remember the Marcus Robinson Catch for the vikings vs the steelers?