PDA

View Full Version : Maclin Catch


Popps
12-27-2009, 06:30 PM
It is what is is, but for curiosity's sake... has anyone watched it a few times?

He was touching the ball with both hands and both feet down, but the ball flipped over into his chest as he brought it in. He absolutely did not have the ball settled until only one foot remained on the ground.

Unless I just don't understand the rule... this one is baffling, particularly because they overturned the call.

Can the ball be flipping over in your hands and still be deemed possession?

Maybe it can, and I'm just not familiar with the rule... but I was surprised they never really mentioned that it totally flipped over in his hands.

Bronx33
12-27-2009, 06:34 PM
It was bobbled ( end of story)

SonOfLe-loLang
12-27-2009, 06:34 PM
I dunno, he moved it, but he def had possession.

Popps
12-27-2009, 06:34 PM
I mean, it wasn't even close... unless bobbling is part of "gaining possession" or some stupid bull**** like that.

briane
12-27-2009, 06:35 PM
bobbled!

bombay
12-27-2009, 06:36 PM
I thought his left foot came up before he controlled it, but the referees thought differently. It's unusual to see them overturn that close a call, but that was the trend of the day. Mike whatsis name was the leagues' man on the spot.

NYBronco
12-27-2009, 06:39 PM
I felt it could have gone either way.

Momentum
12-27-2009, 06:40 PM
He bobbled it the whole way down. Just like the previous catch AND THE ORIGINAL CALL ON THE FREAKING FIELD.

This game needs to be investigated. Seriously. I think something fishy went down. Especially with all the "flag... no wait, were sorry no flag" on the Eagles and all the bullshizzle called on the Broncos.

Ive never been so pissed over a game in my life. We won this. The refs took it.

Play2win
12-27-2009, 06:40 PM
I didn't see conclusive evidence that his feet were actually **TOUCHING** the ground after he secured the football. Sure, it looked like they might be touching the ground, but the way 3D works on a 2D (tv screen), you can't tell for sure unless you see the same view from different perspectives, concurrently.

The call on the field was incomplete. I just don't see the the visual evidence that the feet actually touched the ground. They could have very easily been just inches away from the ground, but never touching it.

I want to see the fking blades of grass moving before they overturn that b!tch !!! :cuss:

SonOfLe-loLang
12-27-2009, 06:41 PM
I honestly dont know what play you guys were watching. he dragged both feet, and though he may have moved the ball, he was hardly bobbling it.

TonyR
12-27-2009, 06:43 PM
I didn't see conclusive evidence

That right there is the key. No matter what the right call was there certainly wasn't conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Play2win
12-27-2009, 06:44 PM
That right there is the key. No matter what the right call was there certainly wasn't conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Exactly. The play on the field stands (or should have...)

Wes Mantooth
12-27-2009, 06:52 PM
This should merge with the bad officiating thread. Horrible call.

Orange4Life
12-27-2009, 06:55 PM
I felt it could have gone either way.

That right there means it should not be overturned. In the intrest of fairness I didn't think the call on our first possesion should of been overturned either. I don't know how anyone could tell if the ball went forward or not.

Replay should only overturn the call when it is conclusive

Kid A
12-27-2009, 06:57 PM
ball moved in his arms for sure after initially getting it in his hands, but maybe the refs still view this as maintaining control?

Man-Goblin
12-27-2009, 06:59 PM
Couldn't believe it was overturned, especially so qickly and so forcefully. I'm still not even convinced his right foot touched the ground at all.

But I guess it was conclusive evidence. Pish.

Sour grapes, I suppose, but it was still bull****.

Bronco LB52
12-27-2009, 07:04 PM
Where is that ****ing queer frerottenextelway? In the game thread, he liked the catch and praised Maclin for making it.

bloodsunday
12-27-2009, 07:12 PM
I didn't see conclusive evidence that his feet were actually **TOUCHING** the ground after he secured the football.

The call on the field was incomplete. I just don't see the the visual evidence that the feet actually touched the ground. They could have very easily been just inches away from the ground, but never touching it.

That's where they eff'd up IMO. When they first put replay in, they were HUGE on making sure things were conclusive. I cannot even remember the last time I heard and official declare a call "inconclusive". It sure seems the emphasis has changed from being conclusive, to make a complete and definite ruling on every play.

I can say for sure he moved that ball. And IMO (and I think its opinion only), he wasn't moving it just to bring it in, but in fact moved it because his initial attempt at catching it was not firm. After that, his elbow hit down before he got his feed or knee down.

All in all, I am baffled at how close it was, that they called it in our favor to begin with, and could still change it. But then again, I was baffled they changed the Orton play early in the game.

oubronco
12-27-2009, 07:12 PM
He was bobbling it with one foot in

ScottXray
12-27-2009, 07:15 PM
It is what is is, but for curiosity's sake... has anyone watched it a few times?

He was touching the ball with both hands and both feet down, but the ball flipped over into his chest as he brought it in. He absolutely did not have the ball settled until only one foot remained on the ground.

Unless I just don't understand the rule... this one is baffling, particularly because they overturned the call.

Can the ball be flipping over in your hands and still be deemed possession?

Maybe it can, and I'm just not familiar with the rule... but I was surprised they never really mentioned that it totally flipped over in his hands.

I thought the same thing...but Phil Simms said OF course the ball is going to move around...I guess the ref deferred to Simms sucking up on the Eagles.

KevinJames
12-27-2009, 07:16 PM
basically the refs didn't wanna die from a battery shower so they called it a catch so they could leave that scum bag stadium in one piece.

SportinOne
12-27-2009, 07:18 PM
It was a catch, and a good one. Get over it.

titan
12-27-2009, 07:19 PM
I was surprised the call was overturned but then again I was surprised they overturned the 1st Orton lateral pass that would have given the Eagles a td.

ScottXray
12-27-2009, 07:19 PM
That right there means it should not be overturned. In the intrest of fairness I didn't think the call on our first possesion should of been overturned either. I don't know how anyone could tell if the ball went forward or not.

Replay should only overturn the call when it is conclusive

Orton let the ball go from the 22-2/3 yard line and it landed almost on the 23.

It was obviously a forward pass. The ball isn't placed where the QBs feet were but where the BALL was when released. What sucked is that the official
originally made the wrong call to start and tried to GIVE a TD to Philly. Thank god we didn't need more challenges to keep them honest. they still made several horrible calls, and as usual the holding on dumerville (and the rest of the Defense) was never called.

Bronco LB52
12-27-2009, 07:20 PM
It was a catch, and a good one. Get over it.

Go **** yourself!

I will buy you a green and black Maclin jersey if you ****ing like it so much.

Bronx33
12-27-2009, 07:23 PM
It was a catch, and a good one. Get over it.



Must catches require complete control maclin catch didn't display control which the initial call pointed out as did the replay. ( not sure what you saw) iam guessing all the replays from (behind) the one from the front showed a lack of control.

misturanderson
12-27-2009, 07:53 PM
Just one of many questionable calls that were called at very inopportune times in the game for the Broncos.

Cmac821
12-27-2009, 08:44 PM
Is there a video of it on the WEB yet?
I never watched the ball during the replays, I was caught up on his feet.

DBroncos4life
12-27-2009, 08:47 PM
The ball moved but it wasn't bobbled.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
12-27-2009, 08:50 PM
Seemed to me that his right foot was up by the time he actually DID have possession, so it seemed questionable.

Of course, the Philly fan that we watched the game with didn't see it, but oddly refused to go back and check it out again...

Sassy
12-27-2009, 09:27 PM
I didn't think he had control of it.

KipCorrington25
12-27-2009, 09:28 PM
I thought he caught it but it doesn't matter, we were not going to get the call on that play in a million years, if it was close enough they would give the call to the NFC East

hambone13
12-27-2009, 09:30 PM
I honestly dont know what play you guys were watching. he dragged both feet, and though he may have moved the ball, he was hardly bobbling it.

I agree. It was a spectacular catch. I didn't think we had a chance in hell after the replays I saw.

hambone13
12-27-2009, 09:34 PM
I didn't think he had control of it.

The ball moved but it didn't look out of control especially since it was moving frame by frame. It moved so little and showed no lack of control IMO.

Broncoman13
12-27-2009, 09:34 PM
As soon as I saw the replay I texted Montrose one simple word, "bobble". Initially his feet were in but then the ball flipped around in his hands, at that point one foot was up and never touched in again. I wasn't surprised that they reversed it though. I was more surprised at the reversal in the beginning on Orton's "fwd pass".

hambone13
12-27-2009, 09:35 PM
That right there means it should not be overturned. In the intrest of fairness I didn't think the call on our first possesion should of been overturned either. I don't know how anyone could tell if the ball went forward or not.

Replay should only overturn the call when it is conclusive

I felt the Orton over-turn was completely legit. It was obvious from a 90 degree angle which direction the ball was coming when it left his hand, forward.

bronco militia
12-27-2009, 09:37 PM
it was catch and goodman was lazy in his coverage....check out what he's doing in the replay

colonelbeef
12-27-2009, 09:39 PM
I didn't really have a problem with that play, however the holding call on Clady in the end zone was total horse****.

bpc
12-27-2009, 09:40 PM
Terrible call. Mike Carey can suck a dick.

Bottom line, if this was Denver, it would have been incomplete. If it was Philly... well, it was ruled a catch.

End of story. One of the worst officiated games i've ever seen.

Momentum
12-27-2009, 10:04 PM
Terrible call. Mike Carey can suck a dick.

Bottom line, if this was Denver, it would have been incomplete. If it was Philly... well, it was ruled a catch.

End of story. One of the worst officiated games i've ever seen.

Amen. Mike Carey needs to be investigated. TOO many "calls" were retracted with "oops.. No call on Philly, continue the game please."

Then you had the phantom calls on Denver to keep Philly alive. And "the catch".

UGH. I am literally sick just thinking about it.

I want to piss on Mike Carey's face.

Popps
12-27-2009, 10:11 PM
I thought the same thing...but Phil Simms said OF course the ball is going to move around...I guess the ref deferred to Simms sucking up on the Eagles.

That's right. He did say that, didn't he.

I'm sure there is a certain amount of normal movement you can expect. But, it looked like the ball rotated completely before settling into his chest. In other words, he did gain full control... I'm just not at all convinced it happened before his other foot came up.

hambone13
12-27-2009, 10:14 PM
That's right. He did say that, didn't he.

I'm sure there is a certain amount of normal movement you can expect. But, it looked like the ball rotated completely before settling into his chest. In other words, he did gain full control... I'm just not at all convinced it happened before his other foot came up.

Phil Simms was also trying to figure out where the ball ended up on the ground as opposed to where it left Orton's hand. I found it easy to see that when the ball left his hand it was clearly moving forward of the perpendicular line of the ball.

RunSilentRunDeep
12-27-2009, 10:19 PM
I've watched the catch multiple times in slow-motion on my 50-inch HDTV. The ball rotates end-to-end over 180-degrees. His left hand is holding a different end of the ball by the time he hits the ground as opposed to the first contact.

Regardless, to say this would have been agreed on by the NFL's wording of "50 drunks in a bar" is beyond silly.

broncobum6162
12-27-2009, 10:54 PM
It is what is is, but for curiosity's sake... has anyone watched it a few times?

He was touching the ball with both hands and both feet down, but the ball flipped over into his chest as he brought it in. He absolutely did not have the ball settled until only one foot remained on the ground.

Unless I just don't understand the rule... this one is baffling, particularly because they overturned the call.

Can the ball be flipping over in your hands and still be deemed possession?

Maybe it can, and I'm just not familiar with the rule... but I was surprised they never really mentioned that it totally flipped over in his hands.
I thought the same thing....(heavy sigh)

TheReverend
12-27-2009, 11:05 PM
I thought it was a catch all the way. He had possession and dragged his feet. When he hit the ground the ball shifted... but that happens. If when he hit the ground it came loose, now that's a diff story.

Popps
12-27-2009, 11:11 PM
I thought it was a catch all the way. He had possession and dragged his feet. When he hit the ground the ball shifted... but that happens. If when he hit the ground it came loose, now that's a diff story.

I thought the same thing until I just happened to see the endzone angle again.

He definitely flips the ball over in his hand before locking it into his body. As someone else said, the ball does a 180.

Now,if that happened before his other foot left the ground, it's all good. But, how the refs could say that with certainty is beyond me.

There's a reason that ref standing right there called it incomplete, and I think the ball-flip was the reason.

TheReverend
12-27-2009, 11:15 PM
Catch rules and going to ground clause:

"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

Going to ground:

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball [with or without contact by a defender] must maintain control of the ball after he touches 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."

So anyways, once he had possession of the ball inbounds (dragging his feet) the only way it becomes a non-catch is if he dropped it after ground contact.

McDman
12-27-2009, 11:15 PM
It was a hell of a catch. The ball moved, but he never lost possession of it and he had both feet dragging.

Excellent catch, quit whining.

TheReverend
12-27-2009, 11:16 PM
I thought the same thing until I just happened to see the endzone angle again.

He definitely flips the ball over in his hand before locking it into his body. As someone else said, the ball does a 180.

Now,if that happened before his other foot left the ground, it's all good. But, how the refs could say that with certainty is beyond me.

There's a reason that ref standing right there called it incomplete, and I think the ball-flip was the reason.

See above post. In a diff clause they say they also permit "slight movement" but naturally don't define what that is, lol.

Popps
12-27-2009, 11:20 PM
See above post. In a diff clause they say they also permit "slight movement" but naturally don't define what that is, lol.

Yea, and I could see an argument that said... "he had control, that was just part of controlling the ball."

Still, it's tough for me to swallow when I see a ball flip a 180 in a guys hands, ending up at a totally different angle... called an incomplete, and then turned over to pretty much end a game.

You'd better be dead-****ing-sure about that call, and I just can't imagine there was enough evidence.

I'm not a ref-blamer, as a rule. But, today was kind of a joke.

McDman
12-27-2009, 11:32 PM
Yea, and I could see an argument that said... "he had control, that was just part of controlling the ball."

Still, it's tough for me to swallow when I see a ball flip a 180 in a guys hands, ending up at a totally different angle... called an incomplete, and then turned over to pretty much end a game.

You'd better be dead-****ing-sure about that call, and I just can't imagine there was enough evidence.

I'm not a ref-blamer, as a rule. But, today was kind of a joke.

Out of all the calls on the field, this was one of the least suspect. It did lead tot hat field goal, but there were a lot more ridiculous rulings than that catch.

TheReverend
12-27-2009, 11:32 PM
Yea, and I could see an argument that said... "he had control, that was just part of controlling the ball."

Still, it's tough for me to swallow when I see a ball flip a 180 in a guys hands, ending up at a totally different angle... called an incomplete, and then turned over to pretty much end a game.

You'd better be dead-****ing-sure about that call, and I just can't imagine there was enough evidence.

I'm not a ref-blamer, as a rule. But, today was kind of a joke.

What you're missing is that it's a CATCH right when he has control and both feet in bounds. Once that's done, all he has to do is not lose it or let it hit the ground while it's not in control.

There were MANY, MANY poor calls today, but I don't include that one.

The Bailey PI, the Stokely ejection (which somehow has been completely ignored by the board today, where if it was Marshall there would've been 100000 trade him threads), phantom holding, illegal shift that was actually a legal shift, etc.

ward63
12-27-2009, 11:33 PM
What you're missing is that it's a CATCH right when he has control and both feet in bounds. Once that's done, all he has to do is not lose it or let it hit the ground while it's not in control.

There were MANY, MANY poor calls today, but I don't include that one.

The Bailey PI, the Stokely ejection (which somehow has been completely ignored by the board today, where if it was Marshall there would've been 100000 trade him threads), phantom holding, illegal shift that was actually a legal shift, etc.

Poorly officiated...end of story

Popps
12-28-2009, 12:01 AM
What you're missing is that it's a CATCH right when he has control and both feet in bounds. Once that's done, all he has to do is not lose it or let it hit the ground while it's not in control.

There were MANY, MANY poor calls today, but I don't include that one.

The Bailey PI, the Stokely ejection (which somehow has been completely ignored by the board today, where if it was Marshall there would've been 100000 trade him threads), phantom holding, illegal shift that was actually a legal shift, etc.

How about the phantom hands to the face on the play where Woodyard's hands never got above his ****ing waist?

Take your pick. I didn't like any of them, and I'm still not positive about that last catch, but you're correct... there were worse.

ZachKC
12-28-2009, 12:16 AM
Former Missouri Tigers had a big day today.

Maclin's TD.

Brad Smiths 106 KO TD returtn.

Ziggy Hood had 2 sacks. Gage and J. Smith played well.

http://www.ucpl.lib.mo.us/childrens/Clips/mizzou.jpg

Play2win
12-28-2009, 12:21 AM
Also, maybe-- just maybe, the REF on the field might have a better perspective and viewpoint to the play... than some camera that is projected on/through some (2D) monitor screen, that some guy 100 feet away from the playing field gets to make the final flawed ruling.

Someone was seeing it in the real world, through their own eyes, and someone else was seeing it through a camera's lens, and most everybody knows cameras can lie.

ZONA
12-28-2009, 12:31 AM
I was surprised the call was overturned but then again I was surprised they overturned the 1st Orton lateral pass that would have given the Eagles a td.

Yeah, and here we are talking about the smart decisions Orton makes and right from the get go he throws a stupid pass that is as close as you can get to a backwards pass without going backwards. The receiver was already siting on the ground when he threw it. Orton just panics too much in the pocket when defenders get close. He's not all that calm in there.

I only saw the replay twice on the Maclin catch and I thought the ref right there called it incomplete because he saw the ball wiggle a tad in there. His feet looked like they were down at first but as he moved the ball a bit his foot came up, and that's why I thought the ref that was right there made the call he did. Seriously lame that it was overturned. The ONLY reason why it could have been overturned was that the replay ref didn't think he moved the ball all that much and maintained possession.

Broncos4tw
12-28-2009, 12:53 AM
It was a catch, get over it. An amazing one at that. I was PO'd and yelling and angry, but it was what it was. Bobbled? It wasn't bobbled, at worst, it wiggled slightly. Sometimes you have to let them play the damn game. If that was Marshall or Royal, you'd be saying it was a catch, I absolutely guarantee it. He had possession when both feet were touching, and he maintained it when he hit the ground, and the ball never touched the turf. It was perfect, and I could only wish it was us who had done it.

Of course, that doesn't excuse the rest of what I thought was one of the WORST officiated games in some 35 or so years I've been watching. The momentum was utterly shifted by the horrible calls.

But at least give credit where it was due, that was one sweet catch.

Momentum
12-28-2009, 03:08 AM
It was a catch, get over it. An amazing one at that. I was PO'd and yelling and angry, but it was what it was. Bobbled? It wasn't bobbled, at worst, it wiggled slightly. Sometimes you have to let them play the damn game. If that was Marshall or Royal, you'd be saying it was a catch, I absolutely guarantee it. He had possession when both feet were touching, and he maintained it when he hit the ground, and the ball never touched the turf. It was perfect, and I could only wish it was us who had done it.

Of course, that doesn't excuse the rest of what I thought was one of the WORST officiated games in some 35 or so years I've been watching. The momentum was utterly shifted by the horrible calls.

But at least give credit where it was due, that was one sweet catch.Bobbled.

brother love
12-28-2009, 03:19 AM
the ref on the sideline who made the call made the sign that he bobbled it as he was calling it incomplete.

Bronco Yoda
12-28-2009, 03:43 AM
The real question that should come from all of this is ...did McD learn his lesson from this? Did it sink in deep down?

Next time in this situation don't play it too safe. The pigskin fairies are not going to just wave pixie dust for you like in N.E. You're not back East anymore and you don't get all thos N.E. benefit-of-the-doubt calls always going your way at the end.

I bet he didn't though... probably going to take a few more kicks in the teeth first. Not easy rewiring your thinking after coming from somewhere where things just always seem to fall in your favor all the time.

Cito Pelon
12-28-2009, 08:11 AM
I didn't think it was justified to turn the call, and I'm always very fair about these things.

elsid13
12-28-2009, 08:17 AM
It was nice throw and nice catch. It was close enough a play that it could have gone either way. That wasn't the play that cost Denver the game, it was the failure to get the 1st on the series before.

titan
12-28-2009, 08:21 AM
I thought Champ was called for face guarding on his PI then I read that face guarding is legal in the NFL

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4778957_nfl-rules-face-guarding.html

How in the world was that pass interference???

I was surprised the Maclin call was overturned but agree with TheReverend that there were far worse calls in this game.

What you're missing is that it's a CATCH right when he has control and both feet in bounds. Once that's done, all he has to do is not lose it or let it hit the ground while it's not in control.

There were MANY, MANY poor calls today, but I don't include that one.

The Bailey PI, the Stokely ejection (which somehow has been completely ignored by the board today, where if it was Marshall there would've been 100000 trade him threads), phantom holding, illegal shift that was actually a legal shift, etc.

misturanderson
12-28-2009, 08:47 AM
I thought Champ was called for face guarding on his PI then I read that face guarding is legal in the NFL

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4778957_nfl-rules-face-guarding.html

How in the world was that pass interference???

I was surprised the Maclin call was overturned but agree with TheReverend that there were far worse calls in this game.

Bailey was called for hitting the receiver's arms while the ball was in the air, all he needed to do was pretend that he was looking back for the ball and it would have been ok. Not sure why he didn't attempt to look back at the ball.

tsiguy96
12-28-2009, 08:49 AM
It was nice throw and nice catch. It was close enough a play that it could have gone either way. That wasn't the play that cost Denver the game, it was the failure to get the 1st on the series before.

basically this. that catch sucked yea, but there was so much situations before it that we could have won the game with, though the refs made sure it wasnt going to happen.