NFL Officiating
- Thread starter AubHawk71
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,723
- Reaction score
- 9,656
I mean…. That “int” we’ve seen many times called reversed or not called an int because the player was down. the Refs ****** that call and their explanation was about as ignorant as well.
However the football gods seemed to dish up Karma to the Broncos immediately with Bo Nix.
Denver won but no QB now. They’re done
However the football gods seemed to dish up Karma to the Broncos immediately with Bo Nix.
Denver won but no QB now. They’re done
Okay. Came here hoping someone can explain how that call yesterday was different from the one we just saw in the Rams/Bears game? Adams was down and the ball got ripped out. Yesterday it looked like the Bills guy was down and the ball got ripped out?
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,723
- Reaction score
- 9,656
exactly what it is
Hollandhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,255
- Reaction score
- 1,365
I didn’t see the play but Ross Tucker said on the radio the difference was that Adams took a few steps before his knee going down. 
Not as I recall. Adams caught it while falling to the ground and they said his shin hit the ground before the ball was ripped out, but yesterday the Bills guy was also on the ground. Maybe there was a difference or more likely just more crummy officiating like usual.I didn’t see the play but Ross Tucker said on the radio the difference was that Adams took a few steps before his knee going down.
Cyrus12
Well-known member
The rules are different depending on the team and the agenda for the league year...you can figure out who the league is pushing this year..fairly obvious. Wwf is the closest sport to the nfl...
chris98251
Well-known member
Here we go again, whats a catch? Bills game he caught it was down and touched by a defender, no fumble since they were both on the ground.
NFL is ducking this backing up what the Officials are saying the call was. God forbid this Superbowl has these type of calls, you may think the game was steered or fixed.
NFL is ducking this backing up what the Officials are saying the call was. God forbid this Superbowl has these type of calls, you may think the game was steered or fixed.
Pretty much! Chiefs no longer the Golden Child. They have been pushing the Bills for awhile now. Every year preseason it's going to be the Bill's year.
If josh allen ever had a good defense he would be a nightmare but is what it is
Why don't the GM's get it
So glad our GM isn't blind to his own potential issues and can correct them given time , which btw is apparently only 1 season
Why don't the GM's get it
So glad our GM isn't blind to his own potential issues and can correct them given time , which btw is apparently only 1 season
If you catch a TD and a shin hits before you go out of bounds, it's a score. But do they need to "survive the ground" when they are out of bounds?
And remember our TD when the kickoff rolled in to the EZ, and the opposing team ignored it? I think it was #36 that jumped on it, rolled over, let go, and went out of bounds. That was a recovery and TD. But are the rules different for a recovery than they are a reception?
The referees are given different rules to follow for different areas of the field.
They need to get rid of the "football move" and "survive the ground" parts of the definition. Did he have possession when he hit the ground? Yes? = Catch. Simple.
And remember our TD when the kickoff rolled in to the EZ, and the opposing team ignored it? I think it was #36 that jumped on it, rolled over, let go, and went out of bounds. That was a recovery and TD. But are the rules different for a recovery than they are a reception?
The referees are given different rules to follow for different areas of the field.
They need to get rid of the "football move" and "survive the ground" parts of the definition. Did he have possession when he hit the ground? Yes? = Catch. Simple.
Followthelegion
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 685
I might be in the minority but the rules are pretty clear, and there must have been some poor miscommunication to fans to lead to this confusion.
1) If a receiver catches the ball and in doing so is NOT falling to the ground, he needs to ascertain possession with 2 feet (or 1 knee / shin etc) down and making a football move (tucking the ball / turning upfield / a 3rd step etc). This is what occurred with the Davante Adams play. He ascertains possession, and is then tackled to the ground. He is then down before the ball is ripped out. Therefore the ball stays with LA at the spot the ball is when his knee is down.
2) If a receiver is going to the ground as part of the process of the catch, then the rules are different. You still need the 2 feet (or 1 knee etc), but to gain possession you MUST survive the ground (aka the Calvin Johnson rule). This is the Buffalo play, as possession wasn't granted yet, the WRs knee being down does nothing. Indeed the defender having his hands on the ball does nothing either in terms of establishing possession. Both of them needed to survive the ground to gain possession, and as the defender rips the ball away at the end of play, that is why this is a clear INT as per the rules.
As always chat of "if its 50/50 the tie goes to the offense" is just misleading (it was the same with the fail mary narrative post game).
In response to Ivotuk above -
1. Yes. if you're going to the ground you need to survive the ground in the endzone for it to be a catch.
2. On the kickoff this is not the catch rule, this is covered by the rules of a recovery. This is determined by if control was gained by the player before a bodypart goes out of bounds. Which in the Pittsburg v Seattle game did occur, hence it was a TD.
1) If a receiver catches the ball and in doing so is NOT falling to the ground, he needs to ascertain possession with 2 feet (or 1 knee / shin etc) down and making a football move (tucking the ball / turning upfield / a 3rd step etc). This is what occurred with the Davante Adams play. He ascertains possession, and is then tackled to the ground. He is then down before the ball is ripped out. Therefore the ball stays with LA at the spot the ball is when his knee is down.
2) If a receiver is going to the ground as part of the process of the catch, then the rules are different. You still need the 2 feet (or 1 knee etc), but to gain possession you MUST survive the ground (aka the Calvin Johnson rule). This is the Buffalo play, as possession wasn't granted yet, the WRs knee being down does nothing. Indeed the defender having his hands on the ball does nothing either in terms of establishing possession. Both of them needed to survive the ground to gain possession, and as the defender rips the ball away at the end of play, that is why this is a clear INT as per the rules.
As always chat of "if its 50/50 the tie goes to the offense" is just misleading (it was the same with the fail mary narrative post game).
In response to Ivotuk above -
1. Yes. if you're going to the ground you need to survive the ground in the endzone for it to be a catch.
2. On the kickoff this is not the catch rule, this is covered by the rules of a recovery. This is determined by if control was gained by the player before a bodypart goes out of bounds. Which in the Pittsburg v Seattle game did occur, hence it was a TD.
The rules need to be the same across all 3. Simplify the possession part by getting rid of "football move."
Torc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2014
- Messages
- 2,391
- Reaction score
- 3,256
even now I watch that TD that Holani recovered in the endzone on the kickoff, and I don't see what we normally call "possession". He falls on it, rolls, lets it go and it's so fast that I am surprised every time that they called it a TD.
Likewise. But I don't think the Refs were paying attention once it rolled that far in to the EZ, and went uhhhhh..."they're celebrating and holding their arms in the air"...uhhh..Looks at the other Refs who shrug their shoulders..uhh "Touchdown!"
flv2
Well-known member
Both incidents were correctly officiated under the current rules.
flv2
Well-known member
This ↑ .
A reception requires more than 2 hands touching the ball at the same time. If a player catches the ball, gets 2 feet down, and makes a football move then he has completed the process. Once completed if the ball comes out as the player hits the ground it is ruled down by contact as the ground cannot cause a fumble.
If the player goes to ground before he has completed the process the player must 'survive the ground'. Obviously another body part might touch the ground before his hands and the ball hit the ground. That touching would not complete the process. If the player loses control of the ball or it is knocked/ripped away from him then he hasn't completed the process. In those circumstances the pass is incomplete rather than completed and fumbled. Thus: If the pass ripped away from Cooks had hit the ground it would have been incomplete rather than a fumble or completed and down by contact. Good effort by Cooks and an even better play by the defender.
