SD last touchdown- NFL Rulebook

[Bladerunner]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

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]

Originally Posted by Doggcow

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!

[Archie]

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]

Originally Posted by Archie

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Archie

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]

he caught the ball got a TD works for me.

[Archie]

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]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

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]

Originally Posted by HILife

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]

Originally Posted by Archie

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]

Originally Posted by SportinOne

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]

Originally Posted by Action

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Archie

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Action

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Action

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 ****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]

Originally Posted by boltaneer

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]

Originally Posted by BroncoFox

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]

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 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]

Originally Posted by Action

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.