Maintain control rule is dumb, kills the Bucs again

[Jason in LA]

I've always hated that maintain control rule. Control of the ball, and two feet down, to me is a catch. The Bucs got screwed again by this rule. They got screwed in the NFC Championship game back in '99 against the Rams by this rule. Now they lose a TD because of it today. The receiver had complete control, two feet, then two knees down before his elbow hit the ground and the ball came lose. The anouncers said that he lost control before he hit the ground. Looked like he had total control of the ball before he hit the ground. He caught it clean, and had both feet then both knees down. That should be a catch. I don't know why the NFL rules that incomplete.

[Play2win]

Why I don't think it pertains in this case, is because the Receiver had possession, put two feet down, made a football move and broke the plane ALL BEFORE HE STARTED TO GO DOWN.

Him going down was after the fact. It was a different situation than the rule states, THEREFORE the rule does not pertain and should not be used. Bottomline that was a RECEPTION...

[yavoon]

I like the rule, ****ing hold onto the ball to make it a catch. its not that hard, eddell just dropped it. dropping it should not be rewarded.

[Kaylore]

I agree. The rule for possesion should be the same whether someone is in the endzone or not. That it changes depending on where you are in the field doesn't make any sense. I hope the Redkskins get killed next game.

[yavoon]

Why I don't think it pertains in this case, is because the Receiver had possession, put two feet down, made a football move and broke the plane ALL BEFORE HE STARTED TO GO DOWN.

Him going down was after the fact. It was a different situation than the rule states, THEREFORE the rule does not pertain and should not be used. Bottomline that was a RECEPTION...

it was explained pretty clearly if u r going down in the act of catching it u must maintain control after u fall.

in no interpretation of the rules was that a catch.

[Kaylore]

it was explained pretty clearly if u r going down in the act of catching it u must maintain control after u fall.

in no interpretation of the rules was that a catch.
But between the endzones the ground can't cause a fumble. It should all be one way or another.

[SAGE]

*Sigh*







With the 31st pick in the draft.........the Denver Broncos select




With the 32nd pick of the draft.......the Denver Broncos select......

[Jason in LA]

I like the rule, ****ing hold onto the ball to make it a catch. its not that hard, eddell just dropped it. dropping it should not be rewarded.

Control and two feet down is a catch. The ball coming out after that shouldn't make it incomplete. It's a silly rule.

[Spider]

it was explained pretty clearly if u r going down in the act of catching it u must maintain control after u fall.

in no interpretation of the rules was that a catch.
. are you sure about that ?

[yavoon]

Control and two feet down is a catch. The ball coming out after that shouldn't make it incomplete. It's a silly rule.

I like it, u think its silly. tho I think mostly u think the redskins winning is silly. whats so silly about making receivers hold onto the football? seems sensible to me.

[Jason in LA]

it was explained pretty clearly if u r going down in the act of catching it u must maintain control after u fall.

in no interpretation of the rules was that a catch.

The rule was called correctly by the refs, but it's a stupid rule. Two feet and control is a catch. I can't think of a good reason why the NFL says it's not.

[yavoon]

But between the endzones the ground can't cause a fumble. It should all be one way or another.

fumbles aren't incompletions.

[Garcia Bronco]

He had possession of the ball. Mike Carey was wrong.

[Jason in LA]

I like it, u think its silly. tho I think mostly u think the redskins winning is silly. whats so silly about making receivers hold onto the football? seems sensible to me.

Who ever said anything about the Skins winning? That has nothing to do with it. I've always thought it was a silly rule. I've seen this rule applied many times in games that I had no rooting interest in, and still thought it was silly.

The guy had total control and two feet and two knees down. How is that not a catch? It's a catch on every other level of football. It would have been a catch in college. It used to be a catch in the NFL. I don't know why the NFL changed the rule. It's silly.

[Kaylore]

fumbles aren't incompletions. What I meant to say was that going down, and being touched as your elbow or lower leg hits the ground is down by contact and everything after that is irrelevant - including the ball coming loose.

[yavoon]

Who ever said anything about the Skins winning? That has nothing to do with it. I've always thought it was a silly rule. I've seen this rule applied many times in games that I had no rooting interest in, and still thought it was silly.

The guy had total control and two feet and two knees down. How is that not a catch? It's a catch on every other level of football. It would have been a catch in college. It used to be a catch in the NFL. I don't know why the NFL changed the rule. It's silly.

ok:). I think its perfectly reasonable to make receivers hold onto the ball.

[elsid13]

Jason

I understand your stance, but this is the NFL and it should be hard. The guys get paid to best in world in what they do.

[-Slap-]

*Sigh*







With the 31st pick in the draft.........the Denver Broncos select




With the 32nd pick of the draft.......the Denver Broncos select......
If someone offered us that deal right now, I would jump on it.

[yavoon]

What I meant to say was that going down, and being touched as your elbow or lower leg hits the ground is down by contact and everything after that is irrelevant - including the ball coming loose.


I can't tell if ur arguing how it should be or how it is. because I guarentee u that the play was not a catch by the nfl rules.

[Jason in LA]

Here's the way I see it. If a player catches the ball, has total control and two feet down, then hits the ground and the ball comes out, that's a fumble, not an incomplete pass. He's already established it as a catch. If the player was touched on his way down then he's down on that spot, and there is no fumble. If he's in the endzone, it's a TD. Point is, once the receiver has established it as a catch, maintaining control after hitting the ground, or making a football move (what ever that is), shouldn't be an issue. If the ball comes out after that point it's a fumble, or the player is down at that spot if he was touched while going down.

[Play2win]

He was't going down in THE PROCCESS OF MAKING THE RECEPTION.

He had ALREADY ATTAINED POCCESSION BEFORE HE BEGAN TO GO DOWN...

[Jason in LA]

ok:). I think its perfectly reasonable to make receivers hold onto the ball.

If he's already established it as a catch, it's either a fumble, or the player is down. It shouldn't be an incomplete pass.

[Jason in LA]

He was't going down in THE PROCCESS OF MAKING THE RECEPTION.

He had ALREADY ATTAINED POCCESSION BEFORE HE BEGAN TO GO DOWN...

Thank you.

[yavoon]

He was't going down in THE PROCCESS OF MAKING THE RECEPTION.

He had ALREADY ATTAINED POCCESSION BEFORE HE BEGAN TO GO DOWN...

the rule is that if u r going down as part of the act of making the catch then u have to hold onto it after u fall. this is what happened. sorry?

[GreatBronco16]

I can't tell if ur arguing how it should be or how it is. because I guarentee u that the play was not a catch by the nfl rules.

How it should and use to be.

[GreatBronco16]

the rule is that if u r going down as part of the act of making the catch then u have to hold onto it after u fall. this is what happened. sorry?

But he wasn't falling down when he made the catch.

[yavoon]

If he's already established it as a catch, it's either a fumble, or the player is down. It shouldn't be an incomplete pass.

ur confusing "already made the catch." imagine someone had a 700 inch vertical, if he leaped into the heavans, made the catch, two flips, a spin and drank a soda he would still have to maintain posession of the ball when he hit the ground.

[Smilin Assassin]

If you get a chance to see the play again(Oh, I'm sure you will), watch the ball as his second foot comes down....it's moving. I wanted this to be a catch in the worst way....it wasn't.

He does cradle the ball after it stops moving, but then hits the ground and it pops out. I thought he had 2 feet down...catch...THEN drops it when tackled.
He never had full control.

It sucks, but it was correct.

[yavoon]

But he wasn't falling down when he made the catch.

yah he was. he was laying out to make it and made zero attempt to continue running.

[Jason in LA]

the rule is that if u r going down as part of the act of making the catch then u have to hold onto it after u fall. this is what happened. sorry?

We're not arguing that the ref blew the call...well, at least I'm not arguing that. By rule the ref made the correct call. I'm just saying it's a stupid rule. That wasn't the rule in the past. Why is it the rule now? They changed the rule back in '99, when the NFL had to cover it's ass for screwing the Bucs out of the Super Bowl because they blew the call on a similar play. Seems like they added this rule so they could justify them calling that pass back in '99 an incomplete pass. The NFL doesn't seem to like to change their rules when they take a ton of heat over it, even if they know it's a bad rule. They still haven't changed the tuck rule.

[yavoon]

We're not arguing that the ref blew the call...well, at least I'm not arguing that. By rule the ref made the correct call. I'm just saying it's a stupid rule. That wasn't the rule in the past. Why is it the rule now? They changed the rule back in '99, when the NFL had to cover it's ass for screwing the Bucs out of the Super Bowl because they blew the call on a similar play. Seems like they added this rule so they could justify them calling that pass back in '99 an incomplete pass. The NFL doesn't seem to like to change their rules when they take a ton of heat over it, even if they know it's a bad rule. They still haven't changed the tuck rule.

nice conspiracy theory, dont care.

[terry251973]

but yet a player can reach the ball over the goaline and pull it back outside the goaline and its a td?horsepooROFL! .TB got screwed on that call and got screwed on cadillacs fumble that was returned.cadillac touched him with his leg before he got up hell he was being touched when we first got ball laying on his side.thats 14 points they got took from them and they still had chance to win if they had not screwed up so many times.doesnt say too much for the deadskins.they will be eliminated pretty quickly in seattle.

[Jason in LA]

ur confusing "already made the catch." imagine someone had a 700 inch vertical, if he leaped into the heavans, made the catch, two flips, a spin and drank a soda he would still have to maintain posession of the ball when he hit the ground.

If he did all that, then lost control of the ball before he got two feet down, then it's incomplete. But if he does all that, gets two feet down, losing the ball after that it should be a fumble, not an incomplete pass. Two feet down should establish it as a catch. That's how it used to be.

[Jason in LA]

nice conspiracy theory, dont care.

Do you even know what play I'm talking about? Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot that you haven't been watching football that long. You probably have no clue what play I'm talking about that caused the NFL to add this stupid rule.

Again, you don't know your history.

[yavoon]

If he did all that, then lost control of the ball before he got two feet down, then it's incomplete. But if he does all that, gets two feet down, losing the ball after that it should be a fumble, not an incomplete pass. Two feet down should establish it as a catch. That's how it used to be.

ur gna have to formulate ur posts a little better ur confusing ppl by whose side ur on. and indeed from ur post even tho it does have one "should" in it I can't really tell if u mean should like the ref messed up or should like change the nfl rules.

[yavoon]

Do you even know what play I'm talking about? Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot that you haven't been watching football that long. You probably have no clue what play I'm talking about that caused the NFL to add this stupid rule.

Again, you don't know your history.

ur such a sad little man. did I upset u by being right? I couldn't have u agreed w/ me! did I upset u by liking the rule? hahahaha.

[Kaylore]

ur gna have to formulate ur posts a little better ur confusing ppl by whose side ur on. and indeed from ur post even tho it does have one "should" in it I can't really tell if u mean should like the ref messed up or should like change the nfl rules.
Yavoon, ur s2pd ritng confuses me all the time.

[yavoon]

Yavoon, ur s2pd ritng confuses me all the time.

note that I explained my confusion to jason, u just tried some childish flame.

tho I guess if ur really dumb, which in all likelihood u r then that means ur the winner! u sure told me!

[Jason in LA]

I don't see why I ever debate with yavoon. He's a total moron that nobody likes. My arguments are as clear as day. The ref called it correctly, by rule. I think it's a stupid rule that the NFL added to cover their own ass. Just like the NFL won't change the tuck rule. If they did they'd have to admit they were wrong about a bad rule.

yavoon probably agrees with the tuck rule.

[Jason in LA]

note that I explained my confusion to jason, u just tried some childish flame.

tho I guess if ur really dumb, which in all likelihood u r then that means ur the winner! u sure told me!

Childish? Read what you posted a few posts ago. You shouldn't be calling anybody childish. You couldn't be over 20 years old. I'd say a high school kid.

[Spider]

I don't see why I ever debate with yavoon. He's a total moron that nobody likes. My arguments are as clear as day. The ref called it correctly, by rule. I think it's a stupid rule that the NFL added to cover their own ass. Just like the NFL won't change the tuck rule. If they did they'd have to admit they were wrong about a bad rule.

yavoon probably agrees with the tuck rule.
I think the reason yavoon types like he does is , he feels he shouldnt be the only one confused ........

[yavoon]

I don't see why I ever debate with yavoon. He's a total moron that nobody likes. My arguments are as clear as day. The ref called it correctly, by rule. I think it's a stupid rule that the NFL added to cover their own ass. Just like the NFL won't change the tuck rule. If they did they'd have to admit they were wrong about a bad rule.

yavoon probably agrees with the tuck rule.

I actually dislike the tuck rule, I guess there goes ur prescience eh? oh well.

[Taco John]

I don't understand the complaint here. You think touchdowns should be rewarded for coming close to catching the ball or something?

[terry251973]

I don't understand the complaint here. You think touchdowns should be rewarded for coming close to catching the ball or something?
yes when the ball is in posession of receiver and has crossed plane of goaline.its a chitty rule.he had posession of that ball while his knees were down .

[Taco John]

Looked to me like he didn't have control of the ball.

[terry251973]

Looked to me like he didn't have control of the ball.
well he had possesion of that ball longer than jeremy shockley did in his td catch few weeks ago and they gave him TD.

[Jason in LA]

On any other level of football that's a catch. Control of the ball, two feet down, then two knees down before he lost control of the ball. He established it as a catch before he lost control of it. The only thing that doesn't make it a catch is a silly rule.

[Jason in LA]

This rule has hurt the Broncos a lot, and it's also worked in their favor a few times. During Lelie's rookie year there was a number of catches of his that were taken away by this rule.

Remember Todd Heap getting the crap knocked out of him by Al Wilson in the endzone a couple years back? They called it an incomplete pass because Heap lost the ball when he hit the ground, but that was a catch, and would have been a TD if it wasn't for this silly rule.

[Headless Hessian Rider]

This rule will be changed soon...

[TexanBob]

I've been pissed ever since Super Bowl XII where Butch Johnson was given a TD against the Broncos that I still believe was not a catch. I guarantee you this Bucs receiver held it longer than Butch Johnson did yet Butch gets a TD and this guy who had control and both feet down and broken the plane of the goalline does not.

I also think they've liberalized breaking the plane to points of absurdity. It seems like somebody can be way out of bounds but as long as they manage to kick the pylon, they now call it a touchdown, but for this receiver somehow catching the ball and having control with both feet down and then a knee down before the ball comes out and it isn't a touchdown.

I have no dog in the game, so I'm not pro-Tampa or anti-Tampa. I just think it's a bad call and if the rules say it's a good call I think the rule needs to be changed.

[yavoon]

I've been pissed ever since Super Bowl XII where Butch Johnson was given a TD against the Broncos that I still believe was not a catch. I guarantee you this Bucs receiver held it longer than Butch Johnson did yet Butch gets a TD and this guy who had control and both feet down and broken the plane of the goalline does not.

I also think they've liberalized breaking the plane to points of absurdity. It seems like somebody can be way out of bounds but as long as they manage to kick the pylon, they now call it a touchdown, but for this receiver somehow catching the ball and having control with both feet down and then a knee down before the ball comes out and it isn't a touchdown.

I have no dog in the game, so I'm not pro-Tampa or anti-Tampa. I just think it's a bad call and if the rules say it's a good call I think the rule needs to be changed.

goal line extends around the world, to infinite, whatever.

[-Slap-]

I don't understand the complaint here. You think touchdowns should be rewarded for coming close to catching the ball or something?
Only if I'm rooting for that team.

[Gcver2ver3]

Only if I'm rooting for that team.



slap...you are a funny dude...:~ohyah!:

[TomServo]

he had both hands on the ball and his knee was down. touchdown.

[Parlett316]

he had both hands on the ball and his knee was down. touchdown.

Tampa can't cry about it since they were on the beneficial side of that call when they played Atlanta.

[TomServo]

PLUS they shoulda scored more that 3 points