PDA

View Full Version : SD last touchdown- NFL Rulebook


Vine
11-18-2012, 07:25 PM
I am looking at NFL Rules concerning touchdowns, and looking for specific rules that affect the ruling of the play in question. Here is what I found:

Rule 11: Scoring, Section 2 Touchdown, Supplemental Notes #2: The player is attempting to catch a pass, the ball is not dead, and a touchdown is not scored, until the receiver completes the catch. See Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7

Rule 3: Definitions Section 2 Ball in Play/Dead Ball, Article 7, Catch: A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the ball has touched the ground.

Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

It is generally believed that from the media, in order for a touchdown to be considered a touchdown, a player must maintain control of the ball throughout the process, which means, if the receiver is falling to the ground, then the ball must not come out at all as the receiver, and/or the ball comes to the ground. However, from reading this rule, I am not seeing any sort of language that suggests that Calvin Johnson's catch a few years ago should have been ruled incomplete. In fact, if I continue from note one to note two, I am under the impression that if a defender knocks the ball loose while the receiver has control in the endzone, then it should be ruled a touchdown. So, why can not a receiver knock the ball out to make it incomplete, and the ground can knock the ball out and make it incomplete?

The purpose of this thread is to show an honest attempt at finding the rules pertaining to the SD touchdown in question, and NFL touchdown receptions in general. If anyone does not like the topic of this thread, please don't respond. It would be greatly appreciated of people who do participate in this thread to post constructive comments, and even attempt to look through the rule book yourselves. If someone find another section of the rule book pertaining NFL touchdown catches it would be tremendously appreciated!

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook

Must download PDF files to view rulebook.

fwf
11-18-2012, 07:36 PM
The spread was Denver +7.5. That was a Huge call for a lot of people.

Pony Boy
11-18-2012, 07:39 PM
I think the question is about it being a secured possession when he crossed the goal line. They are saying he had the ball secured in one hand and when that hand and ball crossed the goal line the touchdown was scored and the play was over.

Vine
11-18-2012, 07:46 PM
I think the question is about it being a secured possession when he crossed the goal line. They are saying he had the ball secured in one hand and when that hand and ball crossed the goal line the touchdown was scored and the play was over.

Yep, I have seen this argument made as well. I have questioned whether possession of the ball crossing the plain of the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule, but I have found no such language in the NFL rulebook making this clear.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-18-2012, 07:50 PM
Ground cannot cause a fumble. But it can cause an incomplete. That should say the catch was already completed before crossing the goaline. The second that ball crosses the line the play is over. To me it looked like he caught it at the 2-3 yard line. Had no bobble before it crossed.

Pony Boy
11-18-2012, 07:51 PM
Yep, I have seen this argument made as well. I have questioned whether possession of the ball crossing the plain of the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule, but I have found no such language in the NFL rulebook making this clear.

Unless it's a new rule it would be a touchdown the same as in the video

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uEA9qxSfcjk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jekyll15Hyde
11-18-2012, 07:52 PM
I am going to go out on a limb but I wont be surprised if the NFL issues a statement later this week that says it shouldnt have been a touchdown.

Jekyll15Hyde
11-18-2012, 07:55 PM
Unless it's a new rule it would be a touchdown the same as in the video

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uEA9qxSfcjk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

apples and oranges. This is all about whether he need to maintain the ball through contacting the ground. I need to see the video again but it didnt look like he established possession to me before being contacted. If so, then he has to maintain possession through falling to the ground.

Mouth
11-18-2012, 08:24 PM
As far as I know, the only way that the play in question can be called a catch (and subsequently a TD) is if the referee felt that it was a catch and clear possession before the receivers knee(s) hit the ground where he would be down by contact and the ball had broken the plane so it is a TD. I (and my GF who isn't a broncos fan) were both confused as to how it was ruled a TD. I think is was a blown call, but as I didn't have any money riding on it and we still won it's a no harm no foul thing for me. I can see how some people would be pissed since that call meant the broncos didn't cover.

gyldenlove
11-18-2012, 08:30 PM
The rule in question is the completed catch rule:

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.).

The section to pay attention to is C, the ruling is that he gained possession of the ball and maintained possession for long enough to advance it prior to breaking the plane of the end zone, this means soon as the tip of the ball cross the plane the play is over and anything that happens subsequently is irrelevant.

As for the common misconception that the ground can not cause a fumble that is an utter fabrication caused by TV commentators with insufficient knowledge of the rules of the game. If a player has possession of the ball and he goes to the ground in the field of play and contact between the ground and the players hand or the ground and the ball prior to the player being down by contact causes the ball to come lose it is a fumble.

Mouth
11-18-2012, 08:42 PM
The rule in question is the completed catch rule:



The section to pay attention to is C, the ruling is that he gained possession of the ball and maintained possession for long enough to advance it prior to breaking the plane of the end zone, this means soon as the tip of the ball cross the plane the play is over and anything that happens subsequently is irrelevant.

As for the common misconception that the ground can not cause a fumble that is an utter fabrication caused by TV commentators with insufficient knowledge of the rules of the game. If a player has possession of the ball and he goes to the ground in the field of play and contact between the ground and the players hand or the ground and the ball prior to the player being down by contact causes the ball to come lose it is a fumble.

It all comes down to wether or not the referee thought the receiver made the catch and then crossed the goal line. I'm going to have to watch the replay again, but it was a really tough call to make.

Doggcow
11-18-2012, 08:49 PM
Cost me my week in fantasy (Denver D)

Jekyll15Hyde
11-18-2012, 09:12 PM
The rule in question is the completed catch rule:



The section to pay attention to is C, the ruling is that he gained possession of the ball and maintained possession for long enough to advance it prior to breaking the plane of the end zone, this means soon as the tip of the ball cross the plane the play is over and anything that happens subsequently is irrelevant.

As for the common misconception that the ground can not cause a fumble that is an utter fabrication caused by TV commentators with insufficient knowledge of the rules of the game. If a player has possession of the ball and he goes to the ground in the field of play and contact between the ground and the players hand or the ground and the ball prior to the player being down by contact causes the ball to come lose it is a fumble.


Thanks for posting this rule. I dont think anyone is saying ground caused the fumble. Its all about whether or not he established possession before being contacted.

When a player (or players) is going to the ground in the attempt to catch a pass, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:

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 he had to have been ruled to catch caught it before he started to go the ground.

Action
11-18-2012, 09:14 PM
Yep, I have seen this argument made as well. I have questioned whether possession of the ball crossing the plain of the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule, but I have found no such language in the NFL rulebook making this clear.

You, my friend are a moron. The referee explained it clear as day as I said in the other thread.


These are two true statements as the following will prove:

This is what the referee said word for word:

"After review the ruling on the field is confirmed. The receiver had possession of the ball and as a second act, set the ball across the goal line.. Therefore ending the process of the catch. It is a touchdown."


The reason why setting the ball across the goal line with possession ends the process of the catch because IT'S A TOUCHDOWN WHEN THE BALL CROSSES THE GOAL LINE IN POSSESSION OF A PLAYER, thus, MARKING THE PLAY DEAD that very moment.

THis is literally what I've been saying in this whole thread...

again

POSSESSION + CROSSING GOAL LINE = TOUCHDOWN PLAY DEAD.

This is not confusing at all.

Jekyll15Hyde
11-18-2012, 09:23 PM
We need a youtube clip posted so we can see if our player played any part of him going to the ground.

Vine
11-18-2012, 09:27 PM
You, my friend are a moron. The referee explained it clear as day as I said in the other thread.


These are two true statements as the following will prove:

This is what the referee said word for word:

"After review the ruling on the field is confirmed. The receiver had possession of the ball and as a second act, set the ball across the goal line.. Therefore ending the process of the catch. It is a touchdown."


The reason why setting the ball across the goal line with possession ends the process of the catch because IT'S A TOUCHDOWN WHEN THE BALL CROSSES THE GOAL LINE IN POSSESSION OF A PLAYER, thus, MARKING THE PLAY DEAD that very moment.

THis is literally what I've been saying in this whole thread...

again

POSSESSION + CROSSING GOAL LINE = TOUCHDOWN PLAY DEAD.

This is not confusing at all.

The rulebook and what the referee said are in complete contradiction of each other. Did it ever occur to you that the referee could actually be wrong?

USMCBladerunner
11-18-2012, 09:42 PM
The rulebook and what the referee said are in complete contradiction of each other. Did it ever occur to you that the referee could actually be wrong?

the rulebook and the referee are not in contradiction with each other...what are in contradiction are the referee's determination that the catch was completed prior to the ball crossing the goal line, and your wishful thinking that it was not..

Vine
11-18-2012, 09:48 PM
the rulebook and the referee are not in contradiction with each other...what are in contradiction are the referee's determination that the catch was completed prior to the ball crossing the goal line, and your wishful thinking that it was not..

Not ever did I question whether the ball was determined to be a catch prior to crossing the goalline I have questioned whether it is a catch as determined by the NFL catch rule (possessing the ball by "completing the process"), which he did not, and I have also questioned whether crossing the plain of the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule (which some on this board claim is true) but I have not seen any language in the NFL rulebook stating that possession of the ball crossing the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule.

boltaneer
11-18-2012, 10:03 PM
Alexander made the catch outside of the endzone and made a "football move" by extending the ball over the goalline and so it didn't matter if the ball came out when he hit the ground.

i don't like the lack of consistency in what is a catch or not depending on where you are on the field but this is just going by what the rules say.

Doggcow
11-18-2012, 10:05 PM
Alexander made the catch outside of the endzone and made a "football move" by extending the ball over the goalline and so it didn't matter if the ball came out when he hit the ground.

i don't like the lack of consistency in what is a catch or not depending on where you are on the field but this is just going by what the rules say.

The rules should also have a clause if it's a garbage TD and ****s my Fantasy team, it doesn't count.

USMCBladerunner
11-18-2012, 10:18 PM
Not ever did I question whether the ball was determined to be a catch prior to crossing the goalline I have questioned whether it is a catch as determined by the NFL catch rule (possessing the ball by "completing the process"), which he did not, and I have also questioned whether crossing the plain of the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule (which some on this board claim is true) but I have not seen any language in the NFL rulebook stating that possession of the ball crossing the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule.

i don't understand the distinction you have in your mind...you ARE questioning whether the catch was made prior to crossing the goal line, because that is the only question that matters... the determination of a completed catch is always based on "completing the process," so what matters here is whether that "process" was complete prior to crossing the goal line or not. If so, TD, if not, incomplete due to ball coming loose upon going to the ground...that determination is exactly what the referees SAID that they made after review. It seems that you disagree with their assessment that the process was complete. That's fine, of course, but I don't understand what you are trying to drive at with the rulebook interpretation.

USMCBladerunner
11-18-2012, 10:25 PM
Not ever did I question whether the ball was determined to be a catch prior to crossing the goalline I have questioned whether it is a catch as determined by the NFL catch rule (possessing the ball by "completing the process"), which he did not, and I have also questioned whether crossing the plain of the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule (which some on this board claim is true) but I have not seen any language in the NFL rulebook stating that possession of the ball crossing the goalline trumps the NFL catch rule.

this is kind of more of the same, but the reason there isn't any language regarding a possession of the ball crossing the goal line trumping the NFL catch rule is because it isn't necessary...there is only one NFL catch rule and it applies everywhere on the field, to include the end zone...the only thing that affects these sorts of situations is whether or not possession is attained prior to crossing the goal line or after...

Vine
11-18-2012, 10:47 PM
this is kind of more of the same, but the reason there isn't any language regarding a possession of the ball crossing the goal line trumping the NFL catch rule is because it isn't necessary...there is only one NFL catch rule and it applies everywhere on the field, to include the end zone...the only thing that affects these sorts of situations is whether or not possession is attained prior to crossing the goal line or after...

So, are you saying that he "completed the catch" before crossing the plain of the goalline? If so, then I would agree that if the process of "completing the catch" occurred prior to the receiver crossing the plain of the goalline, then it's a touchdown. However, I still dispute the notion that the process of completing the catch was made prior to the ground causing the ball to jiggle momentarily as the receiver fell down to the ground.

USMCBladerunner
11-18-2012, 11:29 PM
So, are you saying that he "completed the catch" before crossing the plain of the goalline? If so, then I would agree that if the process of "completing the catch" occurred prior to the receiver crossing the plain of the goalline, then it's a touchdown. However, I still dispute the notion that the process of completing the catch was made prior to the ground causing the ball to jiggle momentarily as the receiver fell down to the ground.

yes, but i'm not saying it, i'm saying that that is what the ref said...I'm not sure I agree with them either, but that is what they ruled, and it is consistent with the rulebook...it was just a judgement call that went against the Broncos

BroncoMan4ever
11-18-2012, 11:39 PM
I personally dislike that a player only needs to get the tip of the ball past the goal line for a TD. Too many times I have seen guy strrtching an arm out from the 3 yard line and getting 6. It needs to be changed that the ball and at least head and shoulders in the end zone for TDs. The way it is puts more and less value on areas of the end zone in my opinion. Tip of the ball at the goal line gets a TD but only 1 foot at the back of the end zone or on the sidelines and it is nothing.

USMCBladerunner
11-18-2012, 11:45 PM
I personally dislike that a player only needs to get the tip of the ball past the goal line for a TD. Too many times I have seen guy strrtching an arm out from the 3 yard line and getting 6. It needs to be changed that the ball and at least head and shoulders in the end zone for TDs. The way it is puts more and less value on areas of the end zone in my opinion. Tip of the ball at the goal line gets a TD but only 1 foot at the back of the end zone or on the sidelines and it is nothing.

i kind of get what you are feeling, but anything else would be (even) tough(er) to referee...IMO end it doesn't really matter where the line is, all teams have to get there.

boltaneer
11-19-2012, 12:09 AM
The rules should also have a clause if it's a garbage TD and ****s my Fantasy team, it doesn't count.

But it helped my fantasy team so it's all good in my book! :flower:

Archie
11-19-2012, 01:37 PM
Late to this conversation and perhaps everyone is already well past this but in my opinion the Referee made the wrong call on the review.

No where else on the field would that have been ruled a catch. The receiver did "go to the ground" in the process of catching the ball (and this note indicates it is regardless of whether contact was made or not). In that case, possession or "determination of a catch" cannot be made without the application of the requirement that the receiver "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground". And, the note goes on to state "whether in the field of play or the end zone".

The referee used the "complete a move normal to the game", but ignored fact that if they go to the ground, that note does not lose it's effect and must also be applied.

Does the NFL publish a "right, wrong, etc.." on calls each week? If they do I'm positive this will be noted as the wrong call.

Jekyll15Hyde
11-19-2012, 02:48 PM
Late to this conversation and perhaps everyone is already well past this but in my opinion the Referee made the wrong call on the review.

No where else on the field would that have been ruled a catch. The receiver did "go to the ground" in the process of catching the ball (and this note indicates it is regardless of whether contact was made or not). In that case, possession or "determination of a catch" cannot be made without the application of the requirement that the receiver "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground". And, the note goes on to state "whether in the field of play or the end zone".

The referee used the "complete a move normal to the game", but ignored fact that if they go to the ground, that note does not lose it's effect and must also be applied.

Does the NFL publish a "right, wrong, etc.." on calls each week? If they do I'm positive this will be noted as the wrong call.


There was good debate on this yesterday. Some of it was with people who clearly dont understand the rules but there were some that do who chimed in. Your take was often flamed pretty hard, but mostly in error.

What is basically boils down to is whether or not he established possession before going to the ground. I posted it before but the key part of 8.1.3 is 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.' The question is was he going to the ground in the act of catching the pass or had he caught the ball and established possession before going to the ground?

The refs ruled his turn and lunge to the goalline was his football move after establishing possession.

I agree with you that there is a case to be made that he was going to the ground in the act of catching the pass... If so, it should be in complete.

Hope to hear more about this from the league this week

DENVERDUI55
11-19-2012, 02:56 PM
Who cares really. We got the win and if you lost your bet on Denver that is a learning experience for you with the hook on 7. You never bet that or buy it off.

Bronc62
11-19-2012, 03:48 PM
I figure we caught a break when the replay officials didn't look too close at Holliday's TD punt return last week, so this time they did look close and it went the other way on us. Win some & lose some calls and play well enough so it doesn't make a difference, as the Broncos have done the past two weeks.

Archie
11-19-2012, 04:06 PM
I will have to go back and look one more time but I certainly didn't perceive that going to the ground was an optional aspect of that play. The player was going to go to the ground as a part of making of the catch.

Does the NFL publish a mea culpa type report?

(And as for why discuss? Because we want to... I don't bet so I could care less about the spread).

Jekyll15Hyde
11-19-2012, 04:36 PM
I will have to go back and look one more time but I certainly didn't perceive that going to the ground was an optional aspect of that play. The player was going to go to the ground as a part of making of the catch.

Wouldn't that be the only grounds to calling it complete? Otherwise he has to maintain control.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-19-2012, 06:59 PM
he caught the ball got a TD works for me.

Archie
11-19-2012, 07:14 PM
My reading of the rule is that the Referee had to determine that the player would not have gone to the ground and it was only his choice of diving to the endzone (which would then also be a football move). I think that would have been a bad determination.

But, from his wording it seems to imply that the going to the ground happened after he crossed the plane and as such was no longer part of the consideration. However, I think it still had to be (in order for the catch to have occurred). This would be somewhat similar to finding that someone who dove from the 1 yard line and caught the ball in the air but continued to fly through the air and first contacts the ground out of bounds has nonetheless scored a touchdown because the act of touching out of bounds occurred after crossing the plane with the ball and thus ending the play.

Even though the event that causes it to not be a catch occurs later then the event that causes it to be a touchdown it is nonetheless a necessary event.

HILife
11-19-2012, 07:57 PM
I think the question is about it being a secured possession when he crossed the goal line. They are saying he had the ball secured in one hand and when that hand and ball crossed the goal line the touchdown was scored and the play was over.

This is how I saw it.

Archie
11-19-2012, 08:33 PM
This is how I saw it.

So, in making the catch the receiver was not going to the ground? He only went to the ground because after making the catch he was making a football move? Those don't seem to be reasonable conclusions.

SportinOne
11-19-2012, 08:52 PM
So, in making the catch the receiver was not going to the ground? He only went to the ground because after making the catch he was making a football move? Those don't seem to be reasonable conclusions.

The fact that he was falling into the endzone shouldn't matter one bit. If this is not a catch at the 50 it's not a catch. If he's at the fifty and sticking the ball out as he's going to the ground results in a catch regardless of whether or not it comes loose when he hits, then yeah that's a touchdown but something tells me that that is not the case.

Either way, we won the division. Still would like to know if they got it right or wrong, though.

Action
11-19-2012, 09:16 PM
The fact that he was falling into the endzone shouldn't matter one bit. If this is not a catch at the 50 it's not a catch. If he's at the fifty and sticking the ball out as he's going to the ground results in a catch regardless of whether or not it comes loose when he hits, then yeah that's a touchdown but something tells me that that is not the case.

Either way, we won the division. Still would like to know if they got it right or wrong, though.

This is pretty bad logic of the rules.

So if something is a fumble at the 50 it should be a fumble in the end zone?

Archie
11-19-2012, 09:31 PM
This is pretty bad logic of the rules.

So if something is a fumble at the 50 it should be a fumble in the end zone?

That is a bad example of his logic. The point is that it has to be a catch before it can be a touchdown. If it is not a catch then it's not a touchdown. His point is that he doubted it would have been ruled a catch at the 50.

BroncoFox
11-19-2012, 09:36 PM
A catch is determined by two things.

If the player is not falling to the ground, he must make a (or have the ability to make) a football move while maintaining control of the ball.

or...

If the player is falling to the ground, there is no football move requirement, but the player must maintain control of the ball through to the ground.

That catch was clearly #2. He had to maintain control through to the ground. He did not. Just because he is in the endzone doesn't magically remove those requirements.

In response to this play, the NFL has stated it was a judgement call. They did NOT say it was a sure thing. They said it was a judgement call by the ref. I think he was wrong. He was falling to the ground. He certainly didn't make a football move, as described by the rules. He was falling to the ground, which means he had to maintain control through the catch. There is no magical moment as soon as you go over the goal line that it's a touchdown. If that were the case, ANY ball that simply passes through a receivers hands, and even held onto for a moment, would be a touchdown. That's not the case. Just touching a ball with two hands while in the endzone doesn't mean an instant TD. Especially when catching a pass.

It's a huge deal because it was upheld through a review.. and had we lost, I think folks would be singing a different tune. Next time we (or another team) may not be that lucky.

Action
11-19-2012, 10:21 PM
That is a bad example of his logic. The point is that it has to be a catch before it can be a touchdown. If it is not a catch then it's not a touchdown. His point is that he doubted it would have been ruled a catch at the 50.

He had possession of the ball after the catch.

You don't need to secure anything after it crosses the goal line as long as you have possession of the ball.

Just like my example of a fumble ---

Doesn't matter if it gets knocked out a second after it crosses the goal line -- it crossed the goal line with possession.

Action
11-19-2012, 10:24 PM
There's only two things you can discuss on this play -

Did he have possession? Did he cross the goal line?

That is it. The finishing the catch rule doesn't matter because the play ended the moment the ball crossed the goal line, PERIOD.

BroncoFox
11-19-2012, 10:28 PM
There's only two things you can discuss on this play -

Did he have possession? Did he cross the goal line?

That is it. The finishing the catch rule doesn't matter because the play ended the moment the ball crossed the goal line, PERIOD.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Could you please quote the NFL rule stating this is the case, in regards to a reception?

boltaneer
11-19-2012, 11:51 PM
The key point is that the referee considered that Alexander turning and reaching the ball into the endzone was a "football move" and established possession.

Whether you agree that he actually had possession, is another issue and it's a judgement call. But considering that the referee made that judgement call, he followed the letter of the law in calling it a touchdown. It would have been no different than a running back reaching the ball into the end zone and having it pop out when he landed.

Had he had caught it in the end zone, i think it's harder to say whether or not it would have been ruled a touchdown because what determines possession in the endzone, I don't think anyone really knows. It's still a judgement call and for whatever reason the NFL is stricter about catches in the end zone than anywhere else on the field (why isn't it consistent no matter where you catch it?)

Think about the Calvin Johnson incident a couple of years back. (I think virtually everyone thinks that was a TD.)

Vine
11-20-2012, 05:36 AM
He had possession of the ball after the catch.

You don't need to secure anything after it crosses the goal line as long as you have possession of the ball.

Just like my example of a fumble ---

Doesn't matter if it gets knocked out a second after it crosses the goal line -- it crossed the goal line with possession.

Damn you are stubborn.... and your lack of knowledge of the requirements of completing the process of a catch is actually amazing. Some have said it don't matter because he had control before crossing the goalline. Actually is does matter, because he was falling down as a result of his efforts in catching the ball. He did not complete the process of making the catch as stated in the NFL rules.

The NFL got this wrong, and if the Chargers would have completed the comeback and won, you better fu**ing believe that controversy would be through the roof. The fact that the NFL has remained quiet on this ruling is the NFL stating that it does not give a **** to betting lines and whoever bet on the game (which I did not).

Vine
11-20-2012, 05:38 AM
The key point is that the referee considered that Alexander turning and reaching the ball into the endzone was a "football move" and established possession.

Whether you agree that he actually had possession, is another issue and it's a judgement call. But considering that the referee made that judgement call, he followed the letter of the law in calling it a touchdown. It would have been no different than a running back reaching the ball into the end zone and having it pop out when he landed.

Had he had caught it in the end zone, i think it's harder to say whether or not it would have been ruled a touchdown because what determines possession in the endzone, I don't think anyone really knows. It's still a judgement call and for whatever reason the NFL is stricter about catches in the end zone than anywhere else on the field (why isn't it consistent no matter where you catch it?)

Think about the Calvin Johnson incident a couple of years back. (I think virtually everyone thinks that was a TD.)

Yes the Calvin Johnson catch. He caught the ball, took 2 steps, and stuck the ball out with his hand. That is 3 football moves before he lost the ball as he fell to the ground. I still don't understand how that is not a catch.

Vine
11-20-2012, 05:39 AM
Sorry, but you are wrong. Could you please quote the NFL rule stating this is the case, in regards to a reception?

It's not in the NFL rulebook.

That One Guy
11-20-2012, 06:34 AM
I'm looking again for the NFL's ruling on this but I just can't recall the guy's name that they ruled on. I'll keep looking.

For those saying it's clear, though, that it should have stood, here's the guy that's now NBC's ref consultant Jim Something (https://twitter.com/RefereeJimD/status/270332138677755904) and his comment was "Going to the ground to complete the catch so by rule, he must control the pass throughout the process not just break the plane." so he thinks they blew the call as well.

Archie
11-20-2012, 06:35 AM
There's only two things you can discuss on this play -

Did he have possession? Did he cross the goal line?

That is it. The finishing the catch rule doesn't matter because the play ended the moment the ball crossed the goal line, PERIOD.

So, you raise the key question. Did he have possession? You assert that he did. I believe “by rule” he did not. He had no more possession then the player who left his feet, catches the ball in the air, breaks the plane of the end zone, and then lands out of bounds.

By rule, a player who goes to the ground in the process of making a catch must control the ball through the contact with the ground. Otherwise it’s not a catch and THERE IS NO POSSESSION. It is not different then the example I gave earlier of catching the ball on the fly in the end zone but landing out of bounds. By rule you must get two feet, a knee, etc for it to be a catch. The determination of a catch (and all the elements of that fact) are evaluated first.

That One Guy
11-20-2012, 06:49 AM
This might be old but I hadn't seen it.

Touchdown Disallowed After Ref Drops Ball Handed To Him By Player

September 17, 2010 [/URL]
KANSAS CITY, MO—Chargers' tight end Antonio Gates' 3-yard touchdown reception against the Chiefs Monday was ruled incomplete after referee Doug Rosenbaum bobbled and dropped the ball handed to him by Gates. "The rule in question states, 'A referee must maintain possession through the entirety of the post-touchdown player-to-referee-exchange, and make a clear officiating move," NFL vice president of officiating Carl Johnson said at a press conference Tuesday. "Not only must the official signal a touchdown, receive the game ball, hold it, and twirl it around a little in his hands, but he must also take it home with him and keep it in his possession for at least three days. That is the only way a touchdown is officially recorded in the NFL." Johnson insisted the rules of the league must be upheld, because otherwise fans might actually be happy.http://www.theonion.com/static/onion/img/icons/terminator.gif


[url]http://www.theonion.com/articles/touchdown-disallowed-after-ref-drops-ball-handed-t,18104/ (http://www.theonion.com/features/sports-news-in-brief/)

That One Guy
11-20-2012, 07:28 AM
OK, I finally found it. The "second act" thing was a creation after the Lance Moore 2 pt conversion in the SB a few years back. It is not technically in the rule book but Pereira insisted on it being ruled that way during his tenure and it hasn't been changed since.

So I thought the league had said the second motion does not negate the need for maintaining possession but they actually said it does. Whether the player was down or not is what determined, in the field of play, whether it's a fumble or down by contact first.

Just for reference, here are two plays which Pereira says should have been ruled a score according to the rule.

Foster (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81bfcd34/Foster-non-TD)

Moore (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81646cea/Saints-two-point-conversion)

So the only thing that really needs to be addressed at this point is what a player already in the endzone can do to perform a second act. Moore, in his, was actually extending the ball across the goal line before any major contact occurred. Once the contact occurred, he lost the ball. If there's no similar way for players to establish that they had possession before contact if they're already in the endzone, I think it'll continue to be imbalanced and called incorrectly at times.

For now, though, it does appear they called the Alexander TD in accordance with precedent though not technically in accordance with the rule book.

Pony Boy
11-20-2012, 07:54 AM
The spread was Denver +7.5. That was a Huge call for a lot of people.

31802

Archie
11-20-2012, 08:17 AM
OK, I finally found it. The "second act" thing was a creation after the Lance Moore 2 pt conversion in the SB a few years back. It is not technically in the rule book but Pereira insisted on it being ruled that way during his tenure and it hasn't been changed since.

So I thought the league had said the second motion does not negate the need for maintaining possession but they actually said it does. Whether the player was down or not is what determined, in the field of play, whether it's a fumble or down by contact first.

Just for reference, here are two plays which Pereira says should have been ruled a score according to the rule.

Foster (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81bfcd34/Foster-non-TD)

Moore (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81646cea/Saints-two-point-conversion)

So the only thing that really needs to be addressed at this point is what a player already in the endzone can do to perform a second act. Moore, in his, was actually extending the ball across the goal line before any major contact occurred. Once the contact occurred, he lost the ball. If there's no similar way for players to establish that they had possession before contact if they're already in the endzone, I think it'll continue to be imbalanced and called incorrectly at times.

For now, though, it does appear they called the Alexander TD in accordance with precedent though not technically in accordance with the rule book.

I see - so now we have both a living constitution and a living NFL rule book :D

Jekyll15Hyde
11-20-2012, 09:01 AM
OK, I finally found it. The "second act" thing was a creation after the Lance Moore 2 pt conversion in the SB a few years back. It is not technically in the rule book but Pereira insisted on it being ruled that way during his tenure and it hasn't been changed since.

So I thought the league had said the second motion does not negate the need for maintaining possession but they actually said it does. Whether the player was down or not is what determined, in the field of play, whether it's a fumble or down by contact first.

Just for reference, here are two plays which Pereira says should have been ruled a score according to the rule.

Foster (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81bfcd34/Foster-non-TD)

Moore (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81646cea/Saints-two-point-conversion)

So the only thing that really needs to be addressed at this point is what a player already in the endzone can do to perform a second act. Moore, in his, was actually extending the ball across the goal line before any major contact occurred. Once the contact occurred, he lost the ball. If there's no similar way for players to establish that they had possession before contact if they're already in the endzone, I think it'll continue to be imbalanced and called incorrectly at times.

For now, though, it does appear they called the Alexander TD in accordance with precedent though not technically in accordance with the rule book.

Thanks for posting this. Very enlightening.

Your comment mentions the 2nd act for the player already in the endzone (and the examples are players in the endzone). Alexander wasnt in the end zone. Does the location on the field really matter?

That One Guy
11-20-2012, 02:20 PM
Thanks for posting this. Very enlightening.

Your comment mentions the 2nd act for the player already in the endzone (and the examples are players in the endzone). Alexander wasnt in the end zone. Does the location on the field really matter?

As far as I'm aware, there are no current recognized "second acts" for guys catching the ball in the endzone.

As to whether area on the field matters, it doesn't technically. For example, if you take the Foster play and move it to the 50, it would become a fumble because the ball comes lose before he goes down. Alexander's, meanwhile, would've been down by contact as he had hit before the ball jarred loose. The reality, however, is that it's not called that way. This rule is pretty much limited to just the end zone as it takes a slow motion review to see whether a player extended the ball when such quick movements are the determining factor.

It was actually a kind of interesting point that some people brought up - things can be seen in slow mo that can't be seen in the game. In full speed, something might ALWAYS be called one way. When, however, you slow it down and look at it all zoomed in, it might easily be seen differently. These second movements could be that type of play as you may need replay and slow mo to tell if a movement was an extension of the ball or an attempt to better secure it/regain balance. The question was brought up that whether things that can ONLY be seen in slow motion should be the determining factor in plays. I think that's a big inhibitor of these calls being consistently enforced. It comes down to whether the coach wants to chance a challenge.

teknic
11-20-2012, 04:53 PM
The ball did not survive contact with the ground, so it should not have been ruled a touchdown. End of story.

I'm just glad that it didn't affect the outcome of the game. There is no way that it could be argued Alexander had completed the catch and had full control of the ball before he crossed the goalline. The evidence simply isn't there on the replay.

USMCBladerunner
11-20-2012, 07:31 PM
I love this stuff...just sayin.

That One Guy
11-20-2012, 07:35 PM
The ball did not survive contact with the ground, so it should not have been ruled a touchdown. End of story.

I'm just glad that it didn't affect the outcome of the game. There is no way that it could be argued Alexander had completed the catch and had full control of the ball before he crossed the goalline. The evidence simply isn't there on the replay.

As was pointed out above, it's currently much more beneficial to catch a pass at the one and then score rather than to catch it in the endzone. Until they clarify the rules, that is a quirk that has to be considered. The Alexander catch was clearly a catch by common sense rules but only even gets consideration of incomplete by bad NFL rules. By ruling it the way they did, they're at least getting the call right even if it's for the wrong reason.

Action
11-21-2012, 02:26 AM
So, you raise the key question. Did he have possession? You assert that he did. I believe “by rule” he did not. He had no more possession then the player who left his feet, catches the ball in the air, breaks the plane of the end zone, and then lands out of bounds.

By rule, a player who goes to the ground in the process of making a catch must control the ball through the contact with the ground. Otherwise it’s not a catch and THERE IS NO POSSESSION. It is not different then the example I gave earlier of catching the ball on the fly in the end zone but landing out of bounds. By rule you must get two feet, a knee, etc for it to be a catch. The determination of a catch (and all the elements of that fact) are evaluated first.

1st off, it is not the same as catching the ball in the air and breaking the plane of the end zone...

Alexander got 2 feet down and a knee.

There is no where that says the determination of a "catch" is to be evaluated 1st.

Action
11-21-2012, 02:37 AM
Damn you are stubborn.... and your lack of knowledge of the requirements of completing the process of a catch is actually amazing. Some have said it don't matter because he had control before crossing the goalline. Actually is does matter, because he was falling down as a result of his efforts in catching the ball. He did not complete the process of making the catch as stated in the NFL rules.

The NFL got this wrong, and if the Chargers would have completed the comeback and won, you better ****ing believe that controversy would be through the roof. The fact that the NFL has remained quiet on this ruling is the NFL stating that it does not give a **** to betting lines and whoever bet on the game (which I did not).

If you want to take a middle ground, it's a judgement call... he caught the ball, got two feet down and attempted to make a football move.

Meaning, he stretched for the touchdown.

The rule for the catch says something like, "must maintain control to the ground"... something along those lines correct?

Well the key word here is "control"... Alexander had control of the ball the WHOLE time AND he made a football move as judged by the referee... control/possession...

Touchdown.

This whole catch rule is making you think too hard.

Imagine this:

Player A laterals to player B, player B catches the ball takes 1 step and dives for endzone - ball pops out...

fumble?

People in here are over analyzing the catch rule in conjunction with the goal line rule here.

This play is really simple.

Caught the ball with two hands, full control, two feet down, lunged and stretched for the end zone with full control.

Action
11-21-2012, 02:39 AM
As was pointed out above, it's currently much more beneficial to catch a pass at the one and then score rather than to catch it in the endzone. Until they clarify the rules, that is a quirk that has to be considered. The Alexander catch was clearly a catch by common sense rules but only even gets consideration of incomplete by bad NFL rules. By ruling it the way they did, they're at least getting the call right even if it's for the wrong reason.

Yes, it's more beneficial to catch the ball and lunge for the end zone than it is to catch the ball in the end zone.

Because you can lose the ball after breaking the plane and it is still a touchdown as long as you have control/possession.

This is known.

Action
11-21-2012, 02:48 AM
He was judged to MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE with CONTROL of the ball...

Watch the play again.

If this was in the field of play, I highly doubt Alexander would have spun and stretched for the end zone. It was CLEARLY a football move.

This play also happened last week:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/miami-dolphins/0ap2000000095733/Bills-defense-fumble-recovery

If that is a fumble, then the Alexander play is a touchdown.

Hartline didn't even get to secure the ball before it was knocked out.

That One Guy
11-21-2012, 04:50 AM
He was judged to MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE with CONTROL of the ball...

Watch the play again.

If this was in the field of play, I highly doubt Alexander would have spun and stretched for the end zone. It was CLEARLY a football move.

This play also happened last week:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/miami-dolphins/0ap2000000095733/Bills-defense-fumble-recovery

If that is a fumble, then the Alexander play is a touchdown.

Hartline didn't even get to secure the ball before it was knocked out.

Still a condescending dick, I see.

The problem is that these things are regularly called in different ways. What you cite as "known" is neither in the rule book nor consistently enforced. Quite usually, the determining factor for a catch or not is simply whether or not the player still has the ball after the fact or whether it came free. If it comes free, it seems they call it an incompletion 90% of the time. I'd even venture to guess that had Alexander's been more noticeably dropped at the end of that play, it'd have been ruled incomplete on the field and up to the coaches to challenge for a TD. So for what you claim to be known, plenty of refs (I cited one above) apparently don't know it as well as you. You should be a ref and get those losers off the field.