Was the 2nd and goal play a TD? (Poll)

[Ad Hawk]

DK lost control of the ball AFTER HE TRAVELED OUT OF BOUNDS. He took two steps (that is a football move) after tucking the ball and before going out. TD.

It doesn't matter if he ran all the way into the stands and fell down, he still has to maintain control of the ball to the ground. In bounds, out of bounds, doesn't matter.

This is a very clear rule now, there is no gray area. So you can not like it, but that's the rule.....and IMO it's a much better rule than it used to be. Too many controversial catch/non catches before this new rule.

What if the receiver never "goes to the ground" at all because you aren't tackled? How long is possession before it gets knocked out?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

DK lost control of the ball AFTER HE TRAVELED OUT OF BOUNDS. He took two steps (that is a football move) after tucking the ball and before going out. TD.

It doesn't matter if he ran all the way into the stands and fell down, he still has to maintain control of the ball to the ground. In bounds, out of bounds, doesn't matter.

This is a very clear rule now, there is no gray area. So you can not like it, but that's the rule.....and IMO it's a much better rule than it used to be. Too many controversial catch/non catches before this new rule.

What if the receiver never "goes to the ground" at all because you aren't tackled? How long is possession before it gets knocked out?

Then it falls under the "football move" catch rule, just as if he's in the field of play. Did he maintain possession enough to make a football move through the act of the catch.

But that's not what happened, he went to the ground and lost possession. So either he has to maintain possession, or regain possession after losing it..........he did neither.

This was not a hard call, the rule is very clear now.

 

[jammerhawk]

I thought it was a catch, DK had control of the ball and made a football move stepping further into the end zone, then he was hammered by their S and the ball was knocked out. What was surprising was there was no automatic review of a potential scoring play within 2 minutes of the end of the game. Any explanation of why not from the NFL would be appreciated to understand the rules better. I think the referees screwed up and also miscalled the final play of the game, it was an incomplete pass.

 

[Tusc2000]

At first glance, I admit it looked like DK held it long enough for a catch -- but on the replay, it showed he was bobbling the ball and didn't have full possession, even before he went out of bounds.

 

[samwize77]

My thought at the time was it was incomplete. After looking at it again just now....I'm thinking it was complete.

 

[Followthelegion]

Thought it was incomplete live and on replay that is confirmed.

2 feet down but DK does not perform a football move so the catch is not complete before the ball is knocked out of his hands. Bang bang play and great effort by defense.

 

[AROS]

It's my understanding that once that ball crosses the first centimeter of that goal line with posession the play is over. Touchdown.

That should have been the game winning TD.

 

[Hawkpower]

It's my understanding that once that ball crosses the first centimeter of that goal line with posession the play is over. Touchdown.

That should have been the game winning TD.

I think (could very well be wrong) that applies to a ball carrier but not a receiver catching a pass.

The possession is the point of contention on a ball thrown into the end zone.

 

[Followthelegion]

It's my understanding that once that ball crosses the first centimeter of that goal line with posession the play is over. Touchdown.

That should have been the game winning TD.

I think (could very well be wrong) that applies to a ball carrier but not a receiver catching a pass.

The possession is the point of contention on a ball thrown into the end zone.

This is correct. It is simple issue of runner vs receiver. A runner has already gained control and Therefore only needs to break the plane.

A receiver needs 2 feet and a football move to complete the catch, this didnt happen here, so it’s not a TD

 

[AgentDib]

If a player is catching the ball in the endzone then it is a touchdown the moment they complete the catch. The rules on that are the same as if the ball was at midfield; it requires securing the ball, two feet in bounds, and then a football move.

Here are the specifics of the "football move" rule: "any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so."

DK didn't do any of these and therefore it was not a catch, and therefore it was not a touchdown.

I suspect the 70% of people responding to this poll who are wrong are probably getting confused because it's different when players are running the ball in. They already have possession so they just need to touch the goal line or pylon for an instant score and it doesn't matter if they fumble after that. If you are catching a ball in the endzone then you need to go through the entire process the same as you would on the 20 yard line.

 

[Msfann]

I don't know enough about the TD to give an opinion on it, we need better views.

The last play of the game I thought was a incomplete pass and if I was a vikings fan I would be kind of pissed the ref's took their last chance away. If the ref's had called it a incomplete pass on the field I doubt many would have disagreed at the time.

 

[Maulbert]

Whether or not it was, I'm glad we didn't score there, allowing us to burn 13 more seconds.

 

[AROS]

It's my understanding that once that ball crosses the first centimeter of that goal line with posession the play is over. Touchdown.

That should have been the game winning TD.

I think (could very well be wrong) that applies to a ball carrier but not a receiver catching a pass.

The possession is the point of contention on a ball thrown into the end zone.

This is correct. It is simple issue of runner vs receiver. A runner has already gained control and Therefore only needs to break the plane.

A receiver needs 2 feet and a football move to complete the catch, this didnt happen here, so it’s not a TD

Good points. I didn't consider RB vs WR in regards to the rule.

 

[sutz]

Simple solution, and I'm sure DK would agree. The receiver has to hang on to the ball. :229031_shrug:

 

[TypeSly]

Absolutely a TD.

 

[A_Biased_Fan]

Simply yes, there was a catch, two feet down, a football move, and then it gets knocked out. By rule that's a catch.

Also, the next down it looked like DK was interfered with on the fade, another missed call.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Whether or not it was, I'm glad we didn't score there, allowing us to burn 13 more seconds.

That's how situationally aware DK is. He knew that he'd get two more cracks at it, so he dropped the ball on purpose to assure less time on the clock.....and it was the difference between winning and losing.

Dude's good.

 

[Jerhawk]

Whether or not it was, I'm glad we didn't score there, allowing us to burn 13 more seconds.

That's how situationally aware DK is. He knew that he'd get two more cracks at it, so he dropped the ball on purpose to assure less time on the clock.....and it was the difference between winning and losing.

Dude's good.

He's next level clutch :irishdrinkers:

 

[ryank24]

I'm with you Jerhawk. DK caught it, broke the plane, and did not lose control until he was out of bounds. TD.

That's not the rule though. The rule is he has to maintain possession to the ground, and he didn't.

This is the Calvin Johnson rule that the league changed in 2010 after a very controversial call with Johnson in the end zone.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/949 ... hange-most

The old rule was two feet in the end zone with possession was a TD. Now it's possession all the way to the ground. DK lost the ball on the ground. No TD.

The Calvin Johnson rule does not exist any more. The league changed the catch rule in 2018 in order to simply it and make it easier for the officials. Here is a summary of the new rule. There is nothing in the rule about going to the ground or all the way through the ground that was the result of the Calvin Johnson touchdown/ non-touchdown.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spo ... atch-rule/

It's the same rule, they just clarified the ground part.

The NFL rules state that a player going to the ground while attempting to make a catch must maintain control of the ball throughout the process before hitting the ground. ... If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete

Again, can't lose control of the ball to the ground.

Yes, DK can lose control of the ball, but he also must regain control after hitting the ground. He did not.

Those are 2 different things. The going to the ground part of the rule (the calvin johnson rule) was taken out a couple years ago. That had to do with a player not losing control of the ball while falling down, regardless of whether the ball touches the ground during the process of going to the ground.

The part of the rule you quoted is in reference to a player trying to maintain possession when the ball actually touches the ground prior to completing the catch. Say on a diving catch, the ground causes the ball to move in the receivers hands then it's not a catch vs. if the ball touches the ground but the receiver maintained control then it is a catch. It also applies to when the ball gets bobbled around like the jermaine kearse catch in the GB game...he lost control but regained it and the ball never touched the ground.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-teams-unanimously-approve-simplified-catch-rule-0ap3000000923342

The question on the DK play is whether or not he made a move common to the game after getting 2 feet in the end zone. I thought it looked like he tucked it to his stomach right as it got punched out so I thought it could have been ruled a catch. Interesting that the official who was about 4 feet away called it a TD, while the official that was way out the back of the end zone came rushing in to change the call, and then they didn't even take the time to review it. Even if they had reviewed it, I'm certain it wouldn't have gotten overturned.

 

[potatohead33]

My first reaction was that it was a TD. The going to the ground rule doesn't exist in the endzone anymore, control and two feet and it should be a catch. The official right beside him initially called it a TD.

I mean they have to draw the line somewhere, DK's first TD he just kind of caught it, rolled over and whipped the ball into the stands all in one motion. By the absolute letter of the law (or at least the old rules) that could be ruled incomplete as well.