What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The NFL is just messing with our heads (1 Viewer)

Uncle Grandpa

Uncle Grandpa

Footballguy
Just when I think I understand the distinction between a catch and non-catch, the NFL awards Golden Tate a touchdown. I give up.

 
The worst part is not that they called it a touchdown. That was bad, but when you watch it in slow motion, you can think how someone, somewhere might think it was a TD.

What is inexcusable is the ref makes no attempt whatsoever to explain the call to the crowd. As a ref, you should be accountable to the fans, and in this case the ref failed to communicate his thinking in any way.

 
NO MORE SLOW MOTION!!!

Replay officials should ONLY be allowed to watch the plays in real time.

Plays look COMPLETELY different when they are slowed down.

 
Pipes said:
Dean Blandino said it was the right call because Tate wasn't going to the ground.
Click to expand...
Haven't heard his explanation, but saw the replay. Surprised if Blandino supported it.

I don't think there's any way that can be called a catch by the rules. After you get 2 feet down, you still have to control the ball long enough to clearly become a runner.

He gets control. Gets 2 feet down with the 2nd being his right foot in the end zone. After that he loses the ball as his left foot is hitting the ground for what would be his next step. It happens quickly enough that duration of time isn't on his side.

I can't believe they'd say that was long enough to clearly become a runner.

And for anyone wondering, the goal line has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a catch.

 
spider321 said:
NO MORE SLOW MOTION!!!

Replay officials should ONLY be allowed to watch the plays in real time.

Plays look COMPLETELY different when they are slowed down.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, but this isn't a possibility if they're going to keep up with the "process" charade. Just too fast if you're going to keep up with this "process" garbage. It should be real-time reviews based on common sense, but common sense means thy have to get rid of the "process" crap.

 
Blandino verbatim explanation: "This is different than the plays we've been talking about, the Dez Bryant play or the Calvin Johnson play. This is not a receiver going to the ground. The issue here is did he become a runner before the ball came loose? Did he have control, both feet down, and then time enough to become a runner after the second foot is down? When you watch the play, the ball comes loose. He is taking his third step. The third step is almost on the ground when the ball comes out. He had demonstrated possession, had become a runner. One the ball breaks the plane of the goal line in possession of the runner, it is a touchdown and the play is over at that point."
Click to expand...
The red part is the problem. That isn't enough to "clearly become a runner". Pretty much every other review if a ball comes out before he's taken a step it hasn't been ruled a catch.

 
When "The NFL" is discussed, the next word that comes to mind of late is "hubris".

You'll see this in full force when the argument 'Goodell makes the league so much money' like another individual couldn't, at minimum, maintain the financial success the league has generated in the last decade.

 
Greg Russell said:
Blandino verbatim explanation: "This is different than the plays we've been talking about, the Dez Bryant play or the Calvin Johnson play. This is not a receiver going to the ground. The issue here is did he become a runner before the ball came loose? Did he have control, both feet down, and then time enough to become a runner after the second foot is down? When you watch the play, the ball comes loose. He is taking his third step. The third step is almost on the ground when the ball comes out. He had demonstrated possession, had become a runner. One the ball breaks the plane of the goal line in possession of the runner, it is a touchdown and the play is over at that point."
Click to expand...
The red part is the problem. That isn't enough to "clearly become a runner". Pretty much every other review if a ball comes out before he's taken a step it hasn't been ruled a catch.
Click to expand...
Ohhh, so what you're saying is that even the rules committee and refs that enforce them don't understand the rules they create? Gotcha.

 
I think they (Blandino and whoever else in NYC was involved in the review remotely) just made a bad call at the time and need to own up to it.

 
Blandino is like the DA of a police department. He'll always have their backs and make them look fantastic unless there is an indisputably bad call.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Killtops said:
The worst part is not that they called it a touchdown. That was bad, but when you watch it in slow motion, you can think how someone, somewhere might think it was a TD.

What is inexcusable is the ref makes no attempt whatsoever to explain the call to the crowd. As a ref, you should be accountable to the fans, and in this case the ref failed to communicate his thinking in any way.
Click to expand...
Actually the ref did explain it. Said Tate had 2 feet down. And becoming a runner. You couldn't hear it over the noise
 
cockroach said:
Uncle Grandpa said:
Deamon said:
Dean's explanation makes it seem legit.
Click to expand...
Except this wasn't a catch last week.

http://deadspin.com/referees-rescind-perfectly-good-devonta-freeman-touchdo-1735949587
Click to expand...
And it shouldn't be, was going to the ground and lost the ball... very similar to the Dez no catch vs the Packers.
Click to expand...
Yes, but here's the problem that the current call highlights. There's a distinction between going to the ground and standing up with regard to making a catch. That's asinine.

Per the NFL, if Tate were somehow falling to the ground when the ball was stripped, it would be called incomplete. Yet he would have accomplished the exact same conditions he did throughout the actual play: control, both feet down, and time enough to become a runner after the second foot is down.

 
Appreciate the rule conversation, but if the league doesn't have any idea...it's difficult to believe we're going to figure it out here.

Good luck though.

 
Uncle Grandpa said:
cockroach said:
Uncle Grandpa said:
Deamon said:
Dean's explanation makes it seem legit.
Click to expand...
Except this wasn't a catch last week.

http://deadspin.com/referees-rescind-perfectly-good-devonta-freeman-touchdo-1735949587
Click to expand...
And it shouldn't be, was going to the ground and lost the ball... very similar to the Dez no catch vs the Packers.
Click to expand...
Yes, but here's the problem that the current call highlights. There's a distinction between going to the ground and standing up with regard to making a catch. That's asinine.

Per the NFL, if Tate were somehow falling to the ground when the ball was stripped, it would be called incomplete. Yet he would have accomplished the exact same conditions he did throughout the actual play: control, both feet down, and time enough to become a runner after the second foot is down.
Click to expand...
I think that's a good thing *shrug*

 
trader jake said:
Appreciate the rule conversation, but if the league doesn't have any idea...it's difficult to believe we're going to figure it out here.

Good luck though.
Click to expand...
All replays should be reviewed by ME.

I promise to use common sense in lieu of poorly worded rules and overly complicated interpretations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can I assume that most of us want to see an NFL where both the Tate play and the Freeman play (linked above) are ruled as touchdowns? So the problem is not that this was ruled a catch...the problem is all of the similar plays that are not.

 
spider321 said:
trader jake said:
Appreciate the rule conversation, but if the league doesn't have any idea...it's difficult to believe we're going to figure it out here.

Good luck though.
Click to expand...
All replays should be reviewed by ME.

I promise to use common sense in lieu of poorly worded rules and overly complicated interpretations.
Click to expand...
Do you also get to hear and rule on the appeals? If so, you may be on to something here.
 
Not Sleeping said:
Can I assume that most of us want to see an NFL where both the Tate play and the Freeman play (linked above) are ruled as touchdowns? So the problem is not that this was ruled a catch...the problem is all of the similar plays that are not.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We used to live in this world. The NFL decided that was not a good place to be.

 
If the rule is that a receiver needs to have 1) control of the ball, 2) both feet down, and 3) established himself as as a runner, then the interpretation as given by Blandino was the correct one if this is what the refs also saw themselves:

"When you watch the play the ball comes loose, he is taking his third step, the third step is almost on the ground when the ball comes out. He had demonstrated possession, had become a runner, once the ball breaks the plane of the goal line in possession of a runner it is a touchdown and the play is over at that point."

My problem is that it seems the ball is starting to come out on the second step, thus not fulfilling 2 and 3. So not a TD IMHO.

 
Amazing how the NFL can't get such an essential part of the game sorted out.

Then again, they're fining a guy for honouring his father with his eye black...

 
CR69 said:
cockroach said:
Uncle Grandpa said:
Deamon said:
Dean's explanation makes it seem legit.
Click to expand...
Except this wasn't a catch last week.http://deadspin.com/referees-rescind-perfectly-good-devonta-freeman-touchdo-1735949587
Click to expand...
And it shouldn't be, was going to the ground and lost the ball... very similar to the Dez no catch vs the Packers.
Click to expand...
Except Dez took three steps, switched the ball to his other hand and then DOVE for the line.
Click to expand...
OH BULL####.

 
CR69 said:
cockroach said:
Uncle Grandpa said:
Deamon said:
Dean's explanation makes it seem legit.
Click to expand...
Except this wasn't a catch last week.http://deadspin.com/referees-rescind-perfectly-good-devonta-freeman-touchdo-1735949587
Click to expand...
And it shouldn't be, was going to the ground and lost the ball... very similar to the Dez no catch vs the Packers.
Click to expand...
Except Dez took three steps, switched the ball to his other hand and then DOVE for the line.
Click to expand...
That never happened.

 
MaxThreshold said:
CR69 said:
cockroach said:
Uncle Grandpa said:
Deamon said:
Dean's explanation makes it seem legit.
Click to expand...
Except this wasn't a catch last week.http://deadspin.com/referees-rescind-perfectly-good-devonta-freeman-touchdo-1735949587
Click to expand...
And it shouldn't be, was going to the ground and lost the ball... very similar to the Dez no catch vs the Packers.
Click to expand...
Except Dez took three steps, switched the ball to his other hand and then DOVE for the line.
Click to expand...
That never happened.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Just watching the replay again. By the time his 2nd foot hits the ground, his body is already at or past a 45-degree angle (aka "falling"). The next toe-tap happens with him basically parallel to the ground and he hits the ground with his arm and the ball a fraction of a second later.

We can argue the merits (or lack thereof) of the rule as interpreted, but let's not start making things up that didn't happen.

(And no, not new here)

 
So stupid that there's a "but was he falling?" qualifier.

Possession- check

Two feet down- check

Football move- check

But he fell to the ground and fumbled afterwards.

Oh, s--t. That totally negates the other parts. Smh

 
"That he was upright, so they deemed that he had possession. That was the exact explanation. ... We're not allowed to talk about officials. You know it, I know it, so why ask?" - John Fox on the overturned interception

 
spider321 said:
NO MORE SLOW MOTION!!!

Replay officials should ONLY be allowed to watch the plays in real time.

Plays look COMPLETELY different when they are slowed down.
Click to expand...
meh....you need slo mo to determine foot in/out, knee or elbow down first, etc.

"element of time" is a requirement for a catch...slo mo should NOT be used to determine that

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Soulfly3
Not undervalued - The most disrespected player is?
2 3
Replies
115
Views
2K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
P
Hip drop tackle: what is it? Should it be a penalty? Will the refs even be able to identify and call it correctly?
4 5 6
Replies
285
Views
7K
Gally
G
Ministry of Pain
Coaching Carousel '24 or The next batch of folks that will be walked out the door in 2-3 years
Replies
26
Views
746
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top