Refs calling 2 incomplete passes

[HFCS]

If you really saw a replay angle where the ball was visibly on the ground I'd love to see it and change my mind on the call. It doesn't exist so I wouldn't waste too much time though.


You just aren't understanding the rule. If you catch it, land with 2 feet and immediately go to the ground as he did you have to maintain possession the entire time. He was tackled to the ground, his knee touched down, he was rolled onto a TCU player and then the ball was popped out. As bad as the rule is that whole thing is the process of going to the ground.

You need 4 feet down to catch a ball? LMAO

foot, foot, knee, down, irrelevant wrestling, ball pops out, blown replay call, you're welcome for the lesson

What you're saying makes sense for Q's catch. When you're talking about Lazard you're doing that thing you do where rationalizing helps you cope. I wish I could to be honest. "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass" Q and TCU td catch wer going down in act of catching pass, Lazard had already caught pass.

 

[MeowingCows]

To complete a catch in football now you have to catch it, carry it to the ground, get up with it, walk it home and place it on your mantle while maintaining control throughout. But they were both correct interpretations of bad rules IMO.

The "Calvin Johnson" rule?

 

[3TrueFans]

You need 4 feet down to catch a ball? LMAO

foot, foot, knee, down, irrelevant wrestling, ball pops out, blown replay call, you're welcome for the lesson

What you're saying makes sense for Q's catch. When you're talking about Lazard you're doing that thing you do where rationalizing helps you cope. I wish I could to be honest.

The relevant part of the rule book:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone.

If he wasn't immediately taken to the ground it would be different, but he was. If you go to the ground when you are making a catch you better be still holding that ball while you're lying on the ground or it will be incomplete. That's the way the rule is written.

 

[3TrueFans]

The "Calvin Johnson" rule?

Or the Dez Bryant rule if you prefer.

 

[HFCS]

The relevant part of the rule book:


If he wasn't immediately taken to the ground it would be different, but he was. If you go to the ground when you are making a catch you better be still holding that ball while you're lying on the ground or it will be incomplete. That's the way the rule is written.

He wasn't going down in act of catching, he had caught the ball. The other two plays we're talking about are examples of going down while catching the ball.

 

[3TrueFans]

He wasn't going down in act of catching, he had caught the ball. The other two plays we're talking about are examples of going down while catching the ball.

Based on this:

3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an actcommon to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it,avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and

I would say that he had not completed the catch and so when he gets taken to the ground that is still part of the catching process. He landed, and was immediately tackled, nothing that could be called an act common to the game.

 

[HFCS]

Based on this:



I would say that he had not completed the catch and so when he gets taken to the ground that is still part of the catching process. He landed, and was immediately tackled, nothing that could be called an act common to the game.

Guess we just won't agree on Lazard, looked totally like a catch then down to a knee to me. I agree that rule should be applied to both Q's non-TD catch and TCU's upheld TD.

I don't keep online still photo files and video of ISU blowout losses, I saw the TCU player roll over a ball on the ground as did several others in the game thread. Maybe you could prove to me and those others that we saw something else.

 

[mkadl]

Eventually this rule will lead to people getting hurt. If I was on defense I would be hitting the receiver well after they were tackled to knock the ball loose.

Watch the replay watch Lazard get popped in the back of the head. as the other defender pulling on the ball.

 

[3TrueFans]

Guess we just won't agree on Lazard, looked totally like a catch then down to a knee to me. I agree that rule should be applied to both Q's non-TD catch and TCU's upheld TD.

I don't keep online still photo files and video of ISU blowout losses, I saw the TCU player roll over a ball on the ground as did several others in the game thread. Maybe you could prove to me and those others that we saw something else.

No, I agree with you that it looked like a catch, but the rules aren't based on logic.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

The TCU's hand was under the ball. It never touched the ground. Just a really good play.

And surprise, surprise, HCFS is arguing about replay.

 

[HFCS]

The TCU's hand was under the ball. It never touched the ground. Just a really good play.

And surprise, surprise, HCFS is arguing about replay.

Yes his hands were under the ball and he caught it like Q caught it (according to how we all think about a football catch), then it came out and he was rolling around with ball on the ground. It was very comperable to Q's catch, seemed like he caught it but just after the ball is on ground. Main difference is when the db stripped it from Q they were a few yards out of bounds and TCU's play was all in bounds. In both cases looks like a catch and down but WR ends up without the ball just after.

 

[rbrook]

nope. Hand was stuck back and not going forward ..

So how did the ball go forward if his hand was back? It had to be going forward for the ball to go forward. The ball landed at about the line of scrimmage.

 

[3TrueFans]

Yes his hands were under the ball and he caught it, then it came out and he was rolling around with ball on the ground. It was very comperable to Q's catch, seemed like he caught it but just after the ball is on ground. Main difference is when the db stripped it from Q they were a few yards out of bounds and TCU's play was all in bounds. In both cases looks like a catch and down but WR ends up with out the ball just after.

There's literally no video evidence of that.

 

[HFCS]

No, I agree with you that it looked like a catch, but the rules aren't based on logic.

So do you think to be a catch a player needs to come down with both feet, take a third or maybe forth step after he has controlled the ball with his first two feet down? To me I think of going down during catch like the other two plays we're talking about, there were no feet on the ground and they're catching the ball as their knee is going to the ground.

Lazard's play he has the ball in his possession with both feet while standing, then a third footstep is his knee going down as he's tackled, then there's some wrestling and the ball pops out. I don't think it fits the description of that posted rule like the other two do.

 

[HFCS]

There's literally no video evidence of that.

Can you show me since myself and others saw it in the game thread. You asked me to show you.

 

[andybernard]

Anyone see the Bears INT that was overturned to a Lions "TD"?

 

[cyrocksmypants]

There's literally no video evidence of that.

This. There were absolutely no angles in which the ball was on the ground. Unless others were watching a more advanced version of the game that showed even more angles than us regular viewers got to see.

 

[andybernard]

This. There were absolutely no angles in which the ball was on the ground. Unless others were watching a more advanced version of the game that showed even more angles than us regular viewers got to see.

Yes, I pay extra for Advanced ESPN 2. I definitely recommend it. Totally worth the extra couple bucks a month.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Yes, I pay extra for Advanced ESPN 2. I definitely recommend it. Totally worth the extra couple bucks a month.

Is it kind of like 360Porn, where you can see ALL of the angles?

 

[andybernard]

Is it kind of like 360Porn, where you can see ALL of the angles?

Very similar, with just a little more foul language.