PDA

View Full Version : Eric Decker Touchdown discussion



wayninja
10-21-2013, 10:55 AM
Was ED's catch a touchdown? He clearly 'caught' the ball, but dropped it out of bounds after scoring.

The explanation I've heard is that you have to 'complete the catch'. It's unclear to me though for how long you must maintain possession after going out of bounds. Isn't it a touchdown as soon as you break the plane of the goal line?

What if he doesn't drop it right there, but stands up out of bounds and then drops it. Is that incomplete?

Discuss.

Thnikkaman
10-21-2013, 10:57 AM
I'm going to guess that in the hypothetical situation you propose, that it would indeed be a touchdown. That being said, I thought I saw that he had control and broke the plane. I thought that was what you needed.

******* NFL.

Mike
10-21-2013, 11:05 AM
Should have been challenged at least. I thought it was similiar to the Thomas TD from earlier this year and had a fair chance to be overturned. Certainly couldn't been worse than the challenge he threw away last week.

jhildebrand
10-21-2013, 11:08 AM
Should have been challenged. The "maintain possession" rule seems to be selectively enforced in different games and enforced differently by various ref crews. To me, the minute the ball crossed the plane and Decker in full control of the ball, it was a TD.

tripp
10-21-2013, 11:09 AM
Should have been challenged at least. I thought it was similiar to the Thomas TD from earlier this year and had a fair chance to be overturned. Certainly couldn't been worse than the challenge he threw away last week.

Are you talking about the challenge on Justin Blackmon? LOL. What a bone head John Fox is.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 11:14 AM
That's not a catch anywhere on the field. He never maintained control.

Mr Bojangles
10-21-2013, 11:19 AM
Was ED's catch a touchdown? He clearly 'caught' the ball, but dropped it out of bounds after scoring.

The explanation I've heard is that you have to 'complete the catch'. It's unclear to me though for how long you must maintain possession after going out of bounds. Isn't it a touchdown as soon as you break the plane of the goal line?

What if he doesn't drop it right there, but stands up out of bounds and then drops it. Is that incomplete?

Discuss.

First of all, there is a difference between a runner who has possession of the ball crossing the plane of the goal line....TD as soon as he does. A receiver, on the other hand, has to have possession AND, if in the act of receiving the ball, maintain control thruout the play.


Decker did not appear to have complete control of the ball, hence no score.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 11:34 AM
That's not a catch anywhere on the field. He never maintained control.

I wish I could find a replay, but if I remember correctly, he caught the ball and took a few steps, twisted and lunged for the pylon. He only lost control after diving out of bounds.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 11:43 AM
I wish I could find a replay, but if I remember correctly, he caught the ball and took a few steps, twisted and lunged for the pylon. He only lost control after diving out of bounds.

He took two steps as he was going down. The rule is you have to maintain possession for it to be a catch, which he did not. If he would have brought the ball in instead of trying to reach for the pylon he would have been fine.

Buff
10-21-2013, 11:48 AM
Calvin Johnson rule. I think that the play should be over the moment he has the ball in his grasp in the end zone, but the rules committee disagrees and wants him to possess it all the way to the ground.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 11:51 AM
I wish I could find a replay, but if I remember correctly, he caught the ball and took a few steps, twisted and lunged for the pylon. He only lost control after diving out of bounds.

It seemed pretty clear to me that it wasn't a catch. You have to get two feet down, maintain control and then "make a football move." While turning towards the pylon may have been the football move, he didn't maintain control when he went to the ground after just two steps. So no catch. If he holds it for any length of time while on the ground it would have been a catch and maybe a TD.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 11:58 AM
It seemed pretty clear to me that it wasn't a catch. You have to get two feet down, maintain control and then "make a football move." While turning towards the pylon may have been the football move, he didn't maintain control when he went to the ground after just two steps. So no catch. If he holds it for any length of time while on the ground it would have been a catch and maybe a TD.

As soon as he lost it I knew it was going to be incomplete.

NightTrainLayne
10-21-2013, 12:02 PM
No way this would have been overturned if challenged. It would have just been a wasted challenge and lost time out.

MO and Bojangles have it right. He has to maintain control throughout on his way to the ground. He lost it as soon as it hit the ground.

AZBronco
10-21-2013, 12:56 PM
I can't find video of the catch either, and I'm going off a hazy beer induced memory. To me, the play is two parts. The catch in the field of play has to be followed by a "football move" which was done when he turned to the endzone with two steps. This completes the catch I though. After completing a catch all a player has to do is break the plane of the endzone. When Decker dove to break the endzone the resulting lost ball is secondary after the plane is broken. Had the catch been made in the endzone then control all the way through and to the ground would have been necessary. However, since the football move completed the pass all he had to do was break the plane to ensure a TD.
Am I that far off on my thought?

Mr Bojangles
10-21-2013, 01:11 PM
No way this would have been overturned if challenged. It would have just been a wasted challenge and lost time out.

MO and Bojangles have it right. He has to maintain control throughout on his way to the ground. He lost it as soon as it hit the ground.



Yet, the ground cannot cause a fumble in the case of a runner. Seems a little incongruous, on the face of it.

weazel
10-21-2013, 01:15 PM
receiver has to maintain control, he never did so its not a touchdown (or a catch anywhere on the field)

skins_fan82
10-21-2013, 01:33 PM
it clearly wasn't a touchdown, as he didn't maintain possession of the ball through his fall. refs got it right.

one of several plays where Eric screwed up last night.

Joel
10-21-2013, 01:48 PM
Was ED's catch a touchdown? He clearly 'caught' the ball, but dropped it out of bounds after scoring.

The explanation I've heard is that you have to 'complete the catch'. It's unclear to me though for how long you must maintain possession after going out of bounds. Isn't it a touchdown as soon as you break the plane of the goal line?
Only with POSSESSION. That's the critical difference between this and runs (or runs after catch.) That Decker was ruled NOT to have possession is why we're debating whether it was incomplete or a TD rather than whether it was a touchback or a TD.


What if he doesn't drop it right there, but stands up out of bounds and then drops it. Is that incomplete?

Discuss.
No, and, IMHO, that's pretty much what happened: The ball didn't come lose as he hit the ground; it was firmly secured at that point and only came lose as he started to rise. The refs disagreed and said he never had possession though, so there we are.

Joel
10-21-2013, 01:50 PM
If he holds it for any length of time while on the ground it would have been a catch and maybe a TD.
This is my objection: He did. It wasn't very long, but it was there, at least from what I saw and recall. Oh, well.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 01:53 PM
That's basically what I was trying to point out with my scenario. How long do you have to maintain it out of bounds? It seems extremely subjective.

I guess the thing that is confusing to me is that it wasn't a diving catch or anything, he caught the ball, took 2 steps, turned up field and dove. He had the catch by virtue of maintaining possession through a 'football move'. What does diving out of bounds have to do with whether or not he 'caught it'?

Joel
10-21-2013, 02:03 PM
Yet, the ground cannot cause a fumble in the case of a runner. Seems a little incongruous, on the face of it.
It's possession vs. non-possession again: The ground can't cause a fumble on a TACKLE because the ball carrier is down the moment anything but his feet or hands hit the ground during or immediately after contact with an opponent: The thing that causes the "fumble" ends the play. Technically, the ground CAN cause a fumble IF there's no contact with an opponent.


That's basically what I was trying to point out with my scenario. How long do you have to maintain it out of bounds? It seems extremely subjective.

I guess the thing that is confusing to me is that it wasn't a diving catch or anything, he caught the ball, took 2 steps, turned up field and dove. He had the catch by virtue of maintaining possession through a 'football move'. What does diving out of bounds have to do with whether or not he 'caught it'?
It must be controlled "all the way" to the ground, and my understanding is that means, not just secure control when he hits the ground, but throughout any roll, slide etc. I thought Decker did that, and the ball only came loose as he was getting back up, similar, in fact, to the way receivers often flip balls to officials as they're getting up after a catch; no one calls those incomplete.

It was a judgement call, and not an easy one. Decker was just making his best effort to win, for which I don't fault him; pulling up on the long pass earlier that could've (should've) drawn PI was a bigger deal, IMHO.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 02:36 PM
Decker had full possession of the ball as he stuck it across the goal line. The
ball did not come out until he had completely rolled over and was already out
of bounds. He had firm grasp on the ball all the way to the ground. It should
have been a touchdown.
.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 03:22 PM
It must be controlled "all the way" to the ground, and my understanding is that means, not just secure control when he hits the ground, but throughout any roll, slide etc. I thought Decker did that, and the ball only came loose as he was getting back up, similar, in fact, to the way receivers often flip balls to officials as they're getting up after a catch; no one calls those incomplete.

It was a judgement call, and not an easy one. Decker was just making his best effort to win, for which I don't fault him; pulling up on the long pass earlier that could've (should've) drawn PI was a bigger deal, IMHO.

I get that, but that doesn't seem relevant in this case as far as I can tell. He already had the ball. It was a catch, he took 2 steps, made a football move. I thought 'all the way to the ground' only applied to whether or not a reception was made, as in when a receiver dives for a catch but doesn't control it 'all the way to the ground'. That wasn't the case here. He caught it, turned up field, dove. Then he lost it when he was already across the TD boundary and OOB. Seems like him losing the ball OOB should be irrelevant.

Clearly it wasn't in the refs estimation, I just don't get it. I don't think I've seen a play like this before called incomplete. I've seen plenty of 'diving catch' type plays that were called incomplete, but this wasn't a diving catch.

Buff
10-21-2013, 03:23 PM
I get that, but that doesn't seem relevant in this case as far as I can tell. He already had the ball. It was a catch, he took 2 steps, made a football move. I thought 'all the way to the ground' only applied to whether or not a reception was made, as in when a receiver dives for a catch but doesn't control it 'all the way to the ground'. That wasn't the case here. He caught it, turned up field, dove. Then he lost it when he was already across the TD boundary and OOB. Seems like him losing the ball OOB should be irrelevant.

Clearly it wasn't in the refs estimation, I just don't get it. I don't think I've seen a play like this before called incomplete. I've seen plenty of 'diving catch' type plays that were called incomplete, but this wasn't a diving catch.

It seems like a clear example of the Calvin Johnson rule to me... So I believe there is a precedent.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 03:25 PM
I get that, but that doesn't seem relevant in this case as far as I can tell. He already had the ball. It was a catch, he took 2 steps, made a football move. I thought 'all the way to the ground' only applied to whether or not a reception was made, as in when a receiver dives for a catch but doesn't control it 'all the way to the ground'. That wasn't the case here. He caught it, turned up field, dove. Then he lost it when he was already across the TD boundary and OOB. Seems like him losing the ball OOB should be irrelevant.

Clearly it wasn't in the refs estimation, I just don't get it. I don't think I've seen a play like this before called incomplete. I've seen plenty of 'diving catch' type plays that were called incomplete, but this wasn't a diving catch.
But it was all the way to the ground, my friend. Decker had completely rolled
over and was on his back when the ball came out. I don't know how it could
be any more clear than that.
.

Denver Native (Carol)
10-21-2013, 03:30 PM
Lindsay Jones ‏@bylindsayhjones 17h

My guess is that Fox will say that he nor his coaches were able to see a replay on the big boards or TV here.

I don't know why John Fox didn't challenge on the pass to Decker. Anything would be speculation now. But will ask after the game.

Denver Native (Carol)
10-21-2013, 03:46 PM
Lindsay Jones ‏@bylindsayhjones 14m

John Fox on Eric Decker play. "You have to complete the catch." Pretty clear from Fox he didn't think it would have been a TD per rules.

jhildebrand
10-21-2013, 03:59 PM
There was a very similar play last weekend or before, almost identical, and the ruling was the minute the player touched the pylon, which Decker did, it was a TD. I may need to go search for the play.

tripp
10-21-2013, 04:27 PM
Bottom line.. why didn't we challenge it? We've wasted challenges on less insignificant things (Justin Blackmon's foot out of bounds)

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 04:31 PM
If he caught the ball, took two steps and dove, then it would be a td, but the fact is he was falling forward when he was in the process of catching the ball. Under no circumstances is that a catch according to the rules. I knew it as soon as the ball came out and I was glad Fox didn't challenge it because we would have lost the challenge.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 04:36 PM
If he caught the ball, took two steps and dove, then it would be a td, but the fact is he was falling forward when he was in the process of catching the ball. Under no circumstances is that a catch according to the rules. I knew it as soon as the ball came out and I was glad Fox didn't challenge it because we would have lost the challenge.
Disagree. Take a look at this very astute analysis:

http://www.milehighreport.com/mhr-film-study/2013/10/21/4863200/upon-further-review-no-challenge-by-fox

I'm not the only one who is not so sure the Broncos would have lost that challenge . . .
.

Skinny
10-21-2013, 04:40 PM
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3426847/decker.gif

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 04:42 PM
Disagree. Take a look at this very astute analysis:

http://www.milehighreport.com/mhr-film-study/2013/10/21/4863200/upon-further-review-no-challenge-by-fox

I'm not the only one who is not so sure the Broncos would have lost that challenge . . .
.

Top, he was going down as he caught the ball. That's the very essence of that rule, and it's why the rule was created.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 04:44 PM
Top, he was going down as he caught the ball. That's the very essence of that rule, and it's why the rule was created.
I don't know how you can see that. He was lunging forward for the pylon
when he caught the ball. He wasn't going down at that point. He took two
full steps after catching the ball. Look at the vid Skinny just posted.

Also, did you even bother to read the analysis to which I linked?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 04:48 PM
I don't know how you can see that. He was lunging forward for the pylon
when he caught the ball. He wasn't going down at that point. He took two
full steps after catching the ball. Look at the vid Skinny just posted.

Also, did you even bother to read the analysis to which I linked?

I saw it, and I've seen it enough. :D He would have fallen down whether or not he reached for the pylon. He was off balance when he caught the ball and took two steps. He should have secured the ball since he was in the act of making a catch, IMO.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 04:52 PM
I saw it, and I've seen it enough. :D He would have fallen down whether or not he reached for the pylon. He was off balance when he caught the ball and took two steps. He should have secured the ball since he was in the act of making a catch, IMO.
But that's my point. He did secure the ball. When he hit the pylon with it, it was
firmly in his grasp. Take a look at the still at the beginning of the article I cited.
It did not come out until he had rolled completely over, and he was on his back.

But, as I said, I am not standing alone with my view. Others more knowledgeable
than I hold the same view on it, obviously.

By the way, did anybody notice the nearly identical catch and roll Fleener did in
the same game that was ruled a touchdown? Catch it here in this video at
about 0:36

http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/Locker_Room_Broncos_at_Colts/86f1c39c-e0c9-4658-b1de-b92a936f0fb7
.

Nomad
10-21-2013, 05:08 PM
I'd say the call was right and Decker didn't maintain control once hitting the ground.

What does the exact wording of the rule say? I thought it said you had to maintain control even after hitting the ground.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 05:11 PM
But that's my point. He did secure the ball. When he hit the pylon with it, it was
firmly in his grasp. Take a look at the still at the beginning of the article I cited.
It did not come out until he had rolled completely over, and he was on his back.

But, as I said, I am not standing alone with my view. Others more knowledgeable
than I hold the same view on it, obviously.

By the way, did anybody notice the nearly identical catch and roll Fleener did in
the same game that was ruled a touchdown? Catch it here in this video at
about 0:36

http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/Locker_Room_Broncos_at_Colts/86f1c39c-e0c9-4658-b1de-b92a936f0fb7
.

...and that's the essence of why there is a major complaint with the rule. A guy can catch the ball, take a step or two while going to the ground, then lose the ball when they hit the ground.

Likewise, others more knowledgeable than I think it wasn't a challenge he would have won.

Fleener's catch and roll wasn't even remotely close to what Decker did. He wasn't falling down when he caught the ball. He caught the ball, took four steps and dove into the end zone. That's a bit of a reach Top.

What happens if Decker makes a catch like that in the middle of the field, goes down without anyone touching him and then loses the ball? We would be on the other side of the argument saying it was an incomplete pass.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 05:28 PM
...and that's the essence of why there is a major complaint with the rule. A guy can catch the ball, take a step or two while going to the ground, then lose the ball when they hit the ground.

Likewise, others more knowledgeable than I think it wasn't a challenge he would have won.

Fleener's catch and roll wasn't even remotely close to what Decker did. He wasn't falling down when he caught the ball. He caught the ball, took four steps and dove into the end zone. That's a bit of a reach Top.

What happens if Decker makes a catch like that in the middle of the field, goes down without anyone touching him and then loses the ball? We would be on the other side of the argument saying it was an incomplete pass.
I don't think so. Fleener took four steps, Decker took two. The ball came out
after Fleener hit the ground. There's just too much of a fine line there. It
should have been challenged. Everybody agrees with that. The reason is that
there is a chance it could have been overturned. Perhaps the officials would
have see what some of us saw: The ball was firmly in Decker's grasp when it
hit the pylon and did not come out until Decker had made a complete roll out
of bounds. In my view, that was a touchdown, and I would argue that were
the receiver playing for the other team.
.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 05:31 PM
I don't think so. Fleener took four steps, Decker took two. The ball came out
after Fleener hit the ground. There's just too much of a fine line there. It
should have been challenged. Everybody agrees with that. The reason is that
there is a chance it could have been overturned. Perhaps the officials would
have see what some of us saw: The ball was firmly in Decker's grasp when it
hit the pylon and did not come out until Decker had made a complete roll out
of bounds. In my view, that was a touchdown, and I would argue that were
the receiver playing for the other team.
.

No, everybody doesn't agree it should have been challenged.

Fleener wasn't falling down. He dove after taking four steps. Decker was off balance and on his way to the ground...big difference.

I agree that Decker had possession of the ball before he hit the ground....that's why some people have taken issue with the rule. This isn't the first time people in a fan base have taken issue with the rule.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 05:37 PM
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3426847/decker.gif

The more I look at this, the more I say this is a touchdown. Ball doesn't move, he gets 2 steps, makes a football move, crosses the plane. Anything that happens after that should be irrelevant.

Im no expert, so maybe the rule is just poorly worded, either way, this should be a touchdown.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 05:37 PM
No, everybody doesn't agree it should have been challenged.

Fleener wasn't falling down. He dove after taking four steps. Decker was off balance and on his way to the ground...big difference.

I agree that Decker had possession of the ball before he hit the ground....that's why some people have taken issue with the rule. This isn't the first time people in a fan base have taken issue with the rule.
Okay, so we can't speak figuratively here. I get it.

So everybody doesn't agree it should be challenged. Most everybody whose
writing I have read have said Fox should have challenged it, even those who
don't believe it was a catch.

Hope that clarifies it.

I made my argument. And, as I said, I am not alone in my view. And it isn't all
fan base. I mentioned commentators, some who are ex-players. They are not
Broncos fanbase.

And I don't see that Decker was off balance. I see that he was lunging for
the pylon. I looked at it again and again, and that is what I saw. Sorry.

/discussion
.

HORSEPOWER 56
10-21-2013, 05:39 PM
The real question about the Decker play is was he going to the ground to make the catch or did he intentionally dive at the pylon after the catch was made. I'm not sure anyone can argue definitively either way.

He clearly catches the ball, has control and takes two steps, albeit he's leaning forward, before he lunges for the pylon. The question nobody except Decker can answer is, could he have kept his feet and secured the catch regardless of if he scored or not?

I think he easily had control of the ball. It wasn't moving in his hands. I think had the pylon not been his goal, say a catch at the 5 yard line instead of the 1, he easily would've brought it into his body and secured it. He may have even kept his feet. The fact that he dove for the pylon made it appear to the official that he couldn't keep his feet and was still in the process of the catch while going to the ground. I don't believe that was the case at all. I think he believed he broke the plane after a clean catch where it doesn't matter if the ball comes out afterward.

On first look, I agreed with the ruling on the field. After a second look at the replay, I agreed with Decker's protest. The rule is the rule and I saw what I wanted to see as a fan but I could also see why a challenge would've been wasted because there was no conclusive evidence.

Nomad
10-21-2013, 05:40 PM
The more I look at this, the more I say this is a touchdown. Ball doesn't move, he gets 2 steps, makes a football move, crosses the plane. Anything that happens after that should be irrelevant.

Im no expert, so maybe the rule is just poorly worded, either way, this should be a touchdown.

I thought as he rolls over, he is supposed to maintain possession/control?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 05:43 PM
Okay, so we can't speak figuratively here. I get it.

So everybody doesn't agree it should be challenged. Most everybody whose
writing I have read have said Fox should have challenged it, even those who
don't believe it was a catch.

Hope that clarifies it.

I made my argument. And, as I said, I am not alone in my view. And it isn't all
fan base. I mentioned commentators, some who are ex-players. They are not
Broncos fanbase.

And I don't see that Decker was off balance. I see that he was lunging for
the pylon. I looked at it again and again, and that is what I saw. Sorry.

/discussion
.

I understand where you're coming from...It's not like I think you're an idiot buffoon who doesn't know what he's talking about. I respect your opinion and understand why you have it. I just don't think we would have won the challenge.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 05:43 PM
The real question about the Decker play is was he going to the ground to make the catch or did he intentionally dive at the pylon after the catch was made. I'm not sure anyone can argue definitively either way.

He clearly catches the ball, has control and takes two steps, albeit he's leaning forward, before he lunges for the pylon. The question nobody except Decker can answer is, could he have kept his feet and secured the catch regardless of if he scored or not?

I think he easily had control of the ball. It wasn't moving in his hands. I think had the pylon not been his goal, say a catch at the 5 yard line instead of the 1, he easily would've brought it into his body and secured it. He may have even kept his feet. The fact that he dove for the pylon made it appear to the official that he couldn't keep his feet and was still in the process of the catch while going to the ground. I don't believe that was the case at all. I think he believed he broke the plane after a clean catch where it doesn't matter if the ball comes out afterward.

On first look, I agreed with the ruling on the field. After a second look at the replay, I agreed with Decker's protest. The rule is the rule and I saw what I wanted to see as a fan but I could also see why a challenge would've been wasted because there was no conclusive evidence.
Well, that's true . . . it is very hard to get a call overturned. And if there is this
much debate over it, then it becomes ever more evident that the challenge
may have been lost. Nonetheless, it should have been challenged. It surely
would have been a better challenge than Fox's iffy challenge last week. I
don't think any of us is going to argue that . . .
.

Buff
10-21-2013, 05:44 PM
The more I look at this, the more I say this is a touchdown. Ball doesn't move, he gets 2 steps, makes a football move, crosses the plane. Anything that happens after that should be irrelevant.

Im no expert, so maybe the rule is just poorly worded, either way, this should be a touchdown.

Sort of like the tuck rule - the majority of fans agree but the rules committee did not. I could see them revisiting the rule because it's controversial every time it comes up.

Nomad
10-21-2013, 05:46 PM
I wish it would have been reviewed/challenged to see.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 06:03 PM
Well, that's true . . . it is very hard to get a call overturned. And if there is this
much debate over it, then it becomes ever more evident that the challenge
may have been lost. Nonetheless, it should have been challenged. It surely
would have been a better challenge than Fox's iffy challenge last week. I
don't think any of us is going to argue that . . .
.

The truth is top, I think it should have been a touchdown, but I didn't think they would win a challenge based on the wording of the rule that requires the receiver to "maintain possession when going to the ground." So, in a sense I am doing a bit of flip flopping. :D

Since he was off balance I wish he would have just secured the ball instead of reaching for the pylon, but that's football....what do ya do?

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 06:04 PM
I thought as he rolls over, he is supposed to maintain possession/control?

He is. That's not a catch.

Buff
10-21-2013, 06:06 PM
Well, that's true . . . it is very hard to get a call overturned. And if there is this
much debate over it, then it becomes ever more evident that the challenge
may have been lost. Nonetheless, it should have been challenged. It surely
would have been a better challenge than Fox's iffy challenge last week. I
don't think any of us is going to argue that . . .
.

I agree that in a perfect world that should have been ruled a catch.

Knowing what we know about NFL rules and how they've been interpreted over the last two seasons, it would have been a bad challenge. Very cut and dry. It's been debated to death with the Calvin Johnson rule.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 06:08 PM
I agree that in a perfect world that should have been ruled a catch.

Knowing what we know about NFL rules and how they've been interpreted over the last two seasons, it would have been a bad challenge. Very cut and dry. It's been debated to death with the Calvin Johnson rule.

I'm not even sure that's necessarily the Calvin Johnson rule, either. He puts two feet down and lunges, during that lunge he loses the football. Even in the field of play it's quite possible that's ruled an incomplete pass because he doesn't maintain control of the football through the "football move."

Buff
10-21-2013, 06:16 PM
I'm not even sure that's necessarily the Calvin Johnson rule, either. He puts two feet down and lunges, during that lunge he loses the football. Even in the field of play it's quite possible that's ruled an incomplete pass because he doesn't maintain control of the football through the "football move."

Either way, it's an issue of maintaining possession through the entire process of the catch, which has been a point of emphasis in recent years due in large part to the CJ ruling.

BroncoWave
10-21-2013, 06:17 PM
I'd rather Fox have challenged this play than the Blackmon play against the Jags. Seems odd how he is using his challenges this season.

Leftee.t.g.jr
10-21-2013, 06:20 PM
I was under the impression that once you cross the goal line it's a TD. He lost the ball only after the ball broke the plain. I thought it was a TD.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 06:23 PM
I was under the impression that once you cross the goal line it's a TD. He lost the ball only after the ball broke the plain. I thought it was a TD.

The play that brought about the "Calvin Johnson rule" actually occured in the end zone, so unfortunately that doesn't help.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 06:28 PM
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3426847/decker.gif
Will somebody please look at this video? Decker didn't lose control of the ball
during the lunge. He lost control after he had hit the ground out of bounds.
He was in firm control during the lunge and when he hit the pylon with the ball.
He took two full steps and hit the pylon with the ball firmly in his grasp. The
play should have been dead right there, IMO.
.

slim
10-21-2013, 06:30 PM
I agree with you Top. Catch, two feet, football move (the lunge) = catch. At that point he is a runner (not a reciever), so once he breaks the plane, it's a TD.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 06:30 PM
Will somebody please look at this video? Decker didn't lose control of the ball
during the lunge. He lost control after he had hit the ground out of bounds.
He was in firm control during the lunge and when he hit the pylon with the ball.
He took two full steps and hit the pylon with the ball firmly in his grasp. The
play should have been dead right there, IMO.
.

If he didn't lose control of it, why did it fly out of his hands?

SR
10-21-2013, 06:31 PM
I don't get what all of the fuss is about. It was ruled incomplete. We lost the game. There's another one Sunday. Let us move forward.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-21-2013, 06:32 PM
I don't get what all of the fuss is about. It was ruled incomplete. We lost the game. There's another one Sunday. Let us move forward.

You're right....I think I'm headed to the beer thread. :laugh:

BroncoWave
10-21-2013, 06:35 PM
I don't get what all of the fuss is about. It was ruled incomplete. We lost the game. There's another one Sunday. Let us move forward.

This board was due for a good meltdown, our fans haven't had much to complain about lately. :lol:

topscribe
10-21-2013, 06:36 PM
If he didn't lose control of it, why did it fly out of his hands?
Take a look at the picture. The ball flew out of Decker's hands when he was
on his back out of bounds, after he had hit the ground and rolled completely
over, well after he had hit the pylon with it. When he hit the pylon, he had
the ball firmly in his grasp. How can you argue that?
.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 06:37 PM
Take a look at the picture. The ball flew out of Decker's hands when he was
on his back out of bounds, after he had hit the ground and rolled completely
over, well after he had hit the pylon with it. When he hit the pylon, he had
the ball firmly in his grasp. How can you argue that?
.

Because that's the rule. Through the entire process of the catch.

slim
10-21-2013, 06:38 PM
Because that's the rule. Through the entire process of the catch.

"The process of the catch" ends once he makes a football move, which he did when he lunged for the pylon.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 06:39 PM
Because that's the rule. Through the entire process of the catch.
So you're saying the ball wasn't in Decker's grasp when it hit the pylon
because that's the rule.

Okay. Have a nice day. :coffee:
.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 06:40 PM
"The process of the catch" ends once he makes a football move, which he did when he lunged for the pylon.

He didn't get the second foot down until he had turned his body, so if the "lunge" is the football move, he's got to complete the "lunge" with the ball in his hands, which he did not do.

slim
10-21-2013, 06:41 PM
He didn't get the second foot down until he had turned his body, so if the "lunge" is the football move, he's got to complete the "lunge" with the ball in his hands, which he did not do.

I need to watch it again tonight (in slow MO), but it was certainly worth a challenge.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 06:41 PM
So you're saying the ball wasn't in Decker's grasp when it hit the pylon
because that's the rule.

Okay. Have a nice day. :coffee:
.

Unfortunately, the pylon doesn't negate the rule.

ShaneFalco
10-21-2013, 06:42 PM
Deion and Faulk both said it was a catch and td. So ill stick with their opinion!

slim
10-21-2013, 06:42 PM
I just watched the clip that Top posted and I stand by what I said. He made a football move and was therefore a runner. Should have a been a TD.

BroncoWave
10-21-2013, 06:43 PM
I need to watch it again tonight (in slow MO), but it was certainly worth a challenge.

Fox saves his challenges for things like a 7 yard difference on a first down catch.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 06:44 PM
I need to watch it again tonight (in slow MO), but it was certainly worth a challenge.
Yes it was. I'm not saying the Broncos would have won the challenge because,
as I agreed, it is very hard to get a reversal. But some think it was a TD, and
some think it wasn't. That made it worth a challenge.
.

slim
10-21-2013, 06:45 PM
Fox saves his challenges for things like a 7 yard difference on a first down catch.

I hate when coaches challenge a spot with the hope of gaining an extra 6 inches of field position. Shanny used to do that all the time.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 06:46 PM
Where was the line of scrimmage on that play? Was it the six?

I definitely think he should have challenged, I just think he would have lost.

slim
10-21-2013, 06:49 PM
Where was the line of scrimmage on that play? Was it the six?

I definitely think he should have challenged, I just think he would have lost.

Last night I thought they would lose the challenge if they tried it. But I'm not so sure now.

Anywho, I hope he gets better at this challenge thing.

NightTrainLayne
10-21-2013, 08:18 PM
"The process of the catch" ends once he makes a football move, which he did when he lunged for the pylon.

No. The process of the catch ends if he maintains control as he goes to the ground.


So you're saying the ball wasn't in Decker's grasp when it hit the pylon
because that's the rule.

Okay. Have a nice day. :coffee:
.

The rule is certainly not that the ball just be in a receivers grasp and hit the pylon.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 08:41 PM
I'm not even sure that's necessarily the Calvin Johnson rule, either. He puts two feet down and lunges, during that lunge he loses the football. Even in the field of play it's quite possible that's ruled an incomplete pass because he doesn't maintain control of the football through the "football move."

I bet if that does happen in the field of play, and it's recovered by the Colts, the colts challenge.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 08:58 PM
No. The process of the catch ends if he maintains control as he goes to the ground.



The rule is certainly not that the ball just be in a receivers grasp and hit the pylon.
That's right. And Decker did have control as he went to the ground. When
he was already on the ground, his elbow hit the ground as he rolled over,
and that is when the ball flew out. Check the video.
.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:01 PM
That's right. And Decker did have control as he went to the ground. When
he was already on the ground, his elbow hit the ground as he rolled over,
and that is when the ball flew out. Check the video.
.

Let me rephrase that slightly for NTL. The receiver must maintain control of the ball THROUGH hitting the ground, which is through the catch as the rule is written, not just as he goes to the ground. He clearly lost control the minute he hit the ground, therefore he didn't complete the catch.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 09:04 PM
Let me rephrase that slightly for NTL. The receiver must maintain control of the ball THROUGH hitting the ground, which is through the catch as the rule is written, not just as he goes to the ground. He clearly lost control the minute he hit the ground, therefore he didn't complete the catch.

If he stays on his back and just tosses it to the ref, it's incomplete?

I'm not trying to be a dick, just illustrating why that is so subjective.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:05 PM
If he stays on his back and just tosses it to the ref, it's incomplete?

I'm not trying to be a dick, just illustrating why that is so subjective.

The collision with the ground caused the ball to be knocked free. That's the difference, between what you just described and what happened.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 09:07 PM
The collision with the ground caused the ball to be knocked free. That's the difference, between what you just described and what happened.

well, the ball is not touching the ground when it comes free, so that's debatable. Looks like Decker just squeezed it too hard trying to hold onto it.

Ok, what if he's laying on his back OOB and a defender comes and hits the ball out of his hands?

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:09 PM
The receiver took two steps in the field of play after catching the ball. Therefore,
it was a catch before he even went to the ground. After he goes two steps,
then contact has been made with the pylon, and the play should be over.
.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:10 PM
well, the ball is not touching the ground when it comes free, so that's debatable. Looks like Decker just squeezed it too hard trying to hold onto it.

Ok, what if he's laying on his back OOB and a defender comes and hits the ball out of his hands?

None of these scenarios matter. It came free when it did. It wasn't batted away by a defender and it wasn't thrown to the referee. It came loose when he hit the ground, therefore no catch.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 09:12 PM
None of these scenarios matter. It came free when it did. It wasn't batted away by a defender and it wasn't thrown to the referee. It came loose when he hit the ground, therefore no catch.

But that didn't happen. I don't need to debate it, there is video evidence of it. He has it well after he rolls onto his back... It doesn't come loose until then.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:13 PM
But that didn't happen. I don't need to debate it, there is video evidence of it. He has it well after he rolls onto his back... It doesn't come loose until then.

Then I don't know what you're seeing, because he never had control of it while laying on his back. It comes loose as soon as he hits the ground.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:17 PM
Then I don't know what you're seeing, because he never had control of it while laying on his back. It comes loose as soon as he hits the ground.
I don't know what you're seeing because it absolutely did not happen that
way. It did not come loose when Decker hit the ground. It came loose when
he was already on the ground and was rolling over.

But, as I went back and reviewed (again) the play, as I said a couple posts
ago, he took two full steps after catching the ball and then hit the pylon.
What happened when he hit the ground after the play was inconsequential.
The play should have already been over because it was a catch before he
even hit the pylon.
.

SR
10-21-2013, 09:19 PM
But that didn't happen. I don't need to debate it, there is video evidence of it. He has it well after he rolls onto his back... It doesn't come loose until then.

Does it matter? The game ended the way it ended. It's over.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:20 PM
Does it matter? The game ended the way it ended. It's over.
The issue didn't end just because the game did. It's something that could arise in a future incident.
.

Buff
10-21-2013, 09:21 PM
The receiver took two steps in the field of play after catching the ball. Therefore,
it was a catch before he even went to the ground. After he goes two steps,
then contact has been made with the pylon, and the play should be over.
.

...Rule Czar Top has spoken.

Seriously though, there is very clear and established precedent for this exact play. I know where you and wayne are coming from, because I think the play should be dead the moment the ball crosses the plane as well, but the rules committee insists that the player needs to possess the ball all the way to the ground. So we should be debating the rule itself, not our own interpretation of what we saw.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:22 PM
I don't know what you're seeing because it absolutely did not happen that
way. It did not come loose when Decker hit the ground. It came loose when
he was already on the ground and was rolling over.

Going to try this again. Not sure why...he has to maintain possession of the ball through the ENTIRE play. It doesn't matter if it came loose when he hit the pylon, or the elbow hitting the ground or the back hitting the ground. HE MUST MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF THE BALL THROUGH THE ENTIRE PLAY.

Unfortunately for the Broncos. That's the rule.

SR
10-21-2013, 09:22 PM
The issue didn't end just because the game did. It's something that could arise in a future incident. .

Sounds like a bunch of uncertainties to me.

Buff
10-21-2013, 09:24 PM
Going to try this again. Not sure why...he has to maintain possession of the ball through the ENTIRE play. It doesn't matter if it came loose when he hit the pylon, or the elbow hitting the ground or the back hitting the ground. HE MUST MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF THE BALL THROUGH THE ENTIRE PLAY.

I get where Top and Wayne are coming from, because I think it's a flawed rule. The frustrating part is that we seem to be debating whether the rule was applied correctly - when it very clearly and obviously was. The issue is whether the rule is a good one or not.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:25 PM
I get where Top and Wayne are coming from, because I think it's a flawed rule. The frustrating part is that we seem to be debating whether the rule was applied correctly - when it very clearly and obviously was. The issue is whether the rule is a good one or not.

To me that's a different debate, because it, unfortunately for the Broncos doesn't apply.

And I don't necessarily disagree with people, in that case.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:26 PM
...Rule Czar Top has spoken.

Seriously though, there is very clear and established precedent for this exact play. I know where you and wayne are coming from, because I think the play should be dead the moment the ball crosses the plane as well, but the rules committee insists that the player needs to possess the ball all the way to the ground. So we should be debating the rule itself, not our own interpretation of what we saw.
But the question is, when is it an incompletion, and when is it a fumble? Had
that happened on the 50-yard line in the middle of the field, and the other
team jumped on the ball, what would the call have been, after Decker had
taken two full steps in full control of the ball, then losing it after hitting the
ground? Would it have been an incomplete pass or a fumble and recovery?

If it would have been the latter, then it would be a complete pass at the
goal line since he took too full steps in control of the ball, and the play
should have been dead the instant he hit the pylon.
.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:26 PM
But the question is, when is it an incompletion, and when is it a fumble. Had
that happened on the 50-yard line in the middle of the field, and the other
team jumped on the ball, what would the call have been, after Decker had
taken two full steps in full control of the ball, then losing it after hitting the
ground? Would it have been an incomplete pass or a fumble and recovery?

If it would have been the latter, then it would be a complete pass at the
goal line since he took too full steps in control of the ball, and the play
should have been dead the instant he hit the pylon.
.

That's an incompletion anywhere on the field.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 09:28 PM
Going to try this again. Not sure why...he has to maintain possession of the ball through the ENTIRE play. It doesn't matter if it came loose when he hit the pylon, or the elbow hitting the ground or the back hitting the ground. HE MUST MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF THE BALL THROUGH THE ENTIRE PLAY.

Unfortunately for the Broncos. That's the rule.

When is the 'entire play' over?

That, to me, is the fundamental question.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:29 PM
That's an incompletion anywhere on the field.
So the receiver takes two full steps with full control of the ball and then loses
control as he goes down, and that's an incompletion. There must have been a
very recent rules change.
.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:30 PM
So the receiver takes two full steps with full control of the ball and then loses
control as he goes down, and that's an incompletion. There must have been a
very recent rules change.
.

It's actually not that recent. But I guess you missed it.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:31 PM
It's actually not that recent. But I guess you missed it.
Nope. I just have seen the fumbles after reception for several years. Ever
since I myself played, which is a long time.
.

Buff
10-21-2013, 09:32 PM
But the question is, when is it an incompletion, and when is it a fumble? Had
that happened on the 50-yard line in the middle of the field, and the other
team jumped on the ball, what would the call have been, after Decker had
taken two full steps in full control of the ball, then losing it after hitting the
ground? Would it have been an incomplete pass or a fumble and recovery?

If it would have been the latter, then it would be a complete pass at the
goal line since he took too full steps in control of the ball, and the play
should have been dead the instant he hit the pylon.
.

It would be incomplete, because it would need to be two feet plus a "football move". If he got two feet down, fell to the ground and dropped the ball, it would be incomplete. If he took a third step, then it would be a fumble because that would constitute a football move.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

wayninja
10-21-2013, 09:34 PM
I get where Top and Wayne are coming from, because I think it's a flawed rule. The frustrating part is that we seem to be debating whether the rule was applied correctly - when it very clearly and obviously was. The issue is whether the rule is a good one or not.

Not taking a dig, but I actually haven't seen any citation of the rule, so I have no idea if was applied correctly or if it's good or bad.

What I saw, at the very least, is borderline. If that happens after decker catches it at the 5 or the 50 and it ends that way, it's a touchddown.

Edit; I posted just a tad late...

I guess you are referring to this:

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.��If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.

But I would argue that's irrelevant because he fulfilled the following criteria:

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:35 PM
It would be incomplete, because it would need to be two feet plus a "football move". If he got two feet down, fell to the ground and dropped the ball, it would be incomplete. If he took a third step, then it would be a fumble because that would constitute a football move.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf
Good point. But Decker's reaching out for the pylon has been described here
as a "football move." Was it?
.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 09:35 PM
Not taking a dig, but I actually haven't seen any citation of the rule, so I have no idea if was applied correctly or if it's good or bad.

What I saw, at the very least, is borderline. If that happens after decker catches it at the 5 or the 50 and it ends that way, it's a touchddown.

Here's the rule that applies to the end of the play.


Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the
process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Buff
10-21-2013, 09:38 PM
Not taking a dig, but I actually haven't seen any citation of the rule, so I have no idea if was applied correctly or if it's good or bad.

What I saw, at the very least, is borderline. If that happens after decker catches it at the 5 or the 50 and it ends that way, it's a touchddown.

I just linked to it a couple of posts above. I understand where you are coming from - it feels like a questionable rule/ruling - I am just saying the precedent has been established and debated. Which doesn't mean you are wrong for feeling like we got screwed, just that this isn't a unique or original occurrence.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:39 PM
Here's the rule that applies to the end of the play.
But the point is, he had already made the catch and taken two full steps, and
put the ball across the goal line, before going to the ground. He was not then
in the process of making the catch. When he hit the pylon, he had long
since made the catch.
.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 09:42 PM
Here's the rule that applies to the end of the play.

Yeah, I see that, I simply think he was no longer 'in the process of of making a catch'. He already fulfilled the requirements of a completed pass.

topscribe
10-21-2013, 09:43 PM
Okay, I'm through with this. lol

As I mentioned, some believe that was not a catch and therefore not a TD,
and some do believe it, and that's not confined to this board, as we have
seen. So I guess we see it differently, and I'm prepared to agree to disagree. :)
.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 09:47 PM
I just linked to it a couple of posts above. I understand where you are coming from - it feels like a questionable rule/ruling - I am just saying the precedent has been established and debated. Which doesn't mean you are wrong for feeling like we got screwed, just that this isn't a unique or original occurrence.

Oh, I get that, I just see a subjective line here between what is 'going to the ground' while catching and what is an already established catch before being tackled, falling, diving etc. This situation, while probably similar to other plays, is also probably slightly different. There is a line somewhere in there were he would have been considered not 'going to the ground'. I don't know if that's another step, moving forward, whatever, but it was definitely close.

I think we are at a point were we are simply debating the two sides of that line, and since it was so close, it's difficult to convince anyone entrenched in their view (which almost all of us talking about this are).

I'm not butthurt by it or anything, it really wouldn't have affected the outcome, just thought it was worthy of discussing/debating.

NightTrainLayne
10-21-2013, 09:49 PM
Here's the relevant rule. Which the MHR article posted earlier entirely ignores:


N.F.L. Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1: Going to the ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Decker was definitely "going to the ground" in the act of catching the pass, and where this occurs on the field (whether at the 50 yard line or the end-zone) is irrelevant.

As virtually all calls are, this is a judgement call to some degree, ( I happen to think its the right judgement call as well), but that was the ruling on the field. As a challenge would require irrefutable visual evidence that the call on the field was incorrect, this obviously can't be overturned, and would have been a waste of a challenge.

Is it a bad rule? Probably.

Is it sometimes inconsistently applied? Probably.

Was the call on the field in accord with the NFL rules as written? Undoubtedly yes.

chazoe60
10-21-2013, 09:50 PM
I really despise all the rules that give such an unfair advantage to the offense making nearly impossible to play defense in today's NFL, so I'm not going to complain about a rule that makes it a little tougher on the offense just because it hurt my team in a game. It's a good rule and I think it was called correctly even though I wish it hadn't been.

I haven't read this entire thread so I'm probably repeating something but I think the "football move" aspect came into play along with maintaining possession all the way through. If he'd have caught the ball at the three and turned upfield then stuck his hand out and hit the pylon it would have been a TD but because it was bang bang it doesn't count.

I think it was called right.

Buff
10-21-2013, 09:50 PM
Good point. But Decker's reaching out for the pylon has been described here
as a "football move." Was it?
.

I think you could make that case... It happened so fast. But it was simultaneous to him getting foot #1 and #2 down and thus he hadn't completed the catch process based on the new interpretation until he lands with the ball.

NightTrainLayne
10-21-2013, 09:52 PM
I think you could make that case... It happened so fast. But it was simultaneous to him getting foot #1 and #2 down and thus he hadn't completed the catch process based on the new interpretation until he lands with the ball.

He was also "going to the ground". That brings the rule quoted above into play.

BroncoWave
10-21-2013, 09:54 PM
I think this is an important distinction. Does the football move have to be made AFTER the two steps, or can it be made DURING the two steps. The way I interpret the rule, you have to take the 2 steps, THEN make a football move. If this is the case, I don't think you can call his reaching for the pylon a football move as it happened WHILE he was taking his two steps. I would be interested in seeing clarification on that though.

Buff
10-21-2013, 09:57 PM
Oh, I get that, I just see a subjective line here between what is 'going to the ground' while catching and what is an already established catch before being tackled, falling, diving etc. This situation, while probably similar to other plays, is also probably slightly different. There is a line somewhere in there were he would have been considered not 'going to the ground'. I don't know if that's another step, moving forward, whatever, but it was definitely close.

I think we are at a point were we are simply debating the two sides of that line, and since it was so close, it's difficult to convince anyone entrenched in their view (which almost all of us talking about this are).

I'm not butthurt by it or anything, it really wouldn't have affected the outcome, just thought it was worthy of discussing/debating.

But I honestly believe your and Top's views are not properly informed in this particular instance. So I don't think it's just two sides disagreeing over something which is entirely subjective. I think it's pretty objectively an incomplete pass given the current rule structure - the part that is debatable is whether we agree with the rule or not.

BroncoWave
10-21-2013, 09:59 PM
I just looked up the rule on a football move. It explicitly states that you have to make the football move AFTER taking your two steps. This makes it pretty clear that you can't count his reaching toward the pylon as a football move.

This is Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3:


Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by
the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).

wayninja
10-21-2013, 10:08 PM
But I honestly believe your and Top's views are not properly informed in this particular instance. So I don't think it's just two sides disagreeing over something which is entirely subjective. I think it's pretty objectively an incomplete pass given the current rule structure - the part that is debatable is whether we agree with the rule or not.

Ok, it's clear that the majority have that opinion, so I won't press it any further. But I will say that it's silly to call it 'objectively' an incomplete pass under the rule structure when the rule is written for it to be completely subjective. The part at issue is whether or not enough time elapsed for:


maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long
enough to do so.

That is subjective. Unless there is a common understanding of exactly how much time this is that I'm missing.

Buff
10-21-2013, 10:12 PM
Ok, it's clear that the majority have that opinion, so I won't press it any further. But I will say that it's silly to call it 'objectively' an incomplete pass under the rule structure when the rule is written for it to be completely subjective. The part at issue is whether or not enough time elapsed for:



That is subjective. Unless there is a common understanding of exactly how much time this is that I'm missing.

Ok, perhaps objective was the wrong word. My point is that there is a clear precedent for how the rule ought to be interpreted in this scenario.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 10:14 PM
I just looked up the rule on a football move. It explicitly states that you have to make the football move AFTER taking your two steps. This makes it pretty clear that you can't count his reaching toward the pylon as a football move.

This is Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3:

Look at the first note. He doensn't HAVE to make a football move, just has to control the ball long enough to have done so. I think he did.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 10:16 PM
There's always going to be a subjective nature to the rule, even if it's reviewed, because the referee is a human being.

There can't be an exact black and white to every rule. This is one of those rules. But, with precedents set, this was called correctly on the field. That doesn't mean Fox shouldn't have challenged.

But that timeout is pretty darn important when you're trying to make a comeback, and you've got at least one, maybe two, more shots at the end zone. You only have one shot at that timeout.

Skinny
10-21-2013, 10:19 PM
Rule 11 Scoring

Section 2 Touchdown
TOUCHDOWN PLAYS
Article 1 Touchdown Plays. A touchdown is scored when:
(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play
(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some
part of the ball passed over or inside the pylon; or
(c) a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of
the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or
(d) any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) that is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line; or
(e) the Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 10:19 PM
There's always going to be a subjective nature to the rule, even if it's reviewed, because the referee is a human being.

There can't be an exact black and white to every rule. This is one of those rules. But, with precedents set, this was called correctly on the field. That doesn't mean Fox shouldn't have challenged.

But that timeout is pretty darn important when you're trying to make a comeback, and you've got at least one, maybe two, more shots at the end zone. You only have one shot at that timeout.

True, we definitely are looking at it with the benefit of hindsight (which does say it was probably worth a challenge), but at the time, it wasn't your last shot at 6, and you are behind in the 4th, so I can kind of get it.

But given the strange gamble last week for almost no reward, it does seem a bit odd that he wouldn't challenge this, but I guess erratic is erratic.

I think I'll start a thread on why I don't think Fox is that good of a coach and the people around him are making him look better than he is.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 10:21 PM
Rule 11 Scoring

Section 2 Touchdown
TOUCHDOWN PLAYS
Article 1 Touchdown Plays. A touchdown is scored when:
(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play
(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some
part of the ball passed over or inside the pylon; or
(c) a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of
the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or
(d) any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) that is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line; or
(e) the Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act.

Rule e FTW.

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 10:22 PM
Rule 11 Scoring

Section 2 Touchdown
TOUCHDOWN PLAYS
Article 1 Touchdown Plays. A touchdown is scored when:
(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play
(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some
part of the ball passed over or inside the pylon; or
(c) a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of
the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or
(d) any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) that is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line; or
(e) the Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act.

Decker did not advance from the field of play before he crossed the pylon.

wayninja
10-21-2013, 10:26 PM
Decker did not advance from the field of play before he crossed the pylon.

???

I thought your argument was posession, not advancement?

How exactly do you get to the pylon without advancing from the field of play?

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 10:28 PM
???

I thought your argument was posession, not advancement?

It is.

But he didn't advance from the playing field with the ball. He met the goalline simultaneously to possession, so it is sort of part of it.

NightTrainLayne
10-21-2013, 10:29 PM
Rule 11 Scoring

Section 2 Touchdown
TOUCHDOWN PLAYS
Article 1 Touchdown Plays. A touchdown is scored when:
(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play
(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some
part of the ball passed over or inside the pylon; or
(c) a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of
the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or
(d) any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) that is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line; or
(e) the Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act.

All of this references a player in possession of the ball. You have to determine possession prior to any of the above.

Since different parts of the rule regarding completed passes and possession by receivers have been posted, I think I will post the entire rule and hope it lessens confusion.

The entire rule has to be applied. As I have stated a few times here now, you have to pay particular attention to the "going to the ground" item since Decker was going to the ground.


COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3: End Zone Catches. If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.
Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.

Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

Item 6: Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass.

BroncoWave
10-21-2013, 10:29 PM
Rule e FTW.

I would imagine that would come into effect if a player was streaking down the sideline and someone on the bench came out and tackled him or something. :lol:

wayninja
10-21-2013, 10:29 PM
It is.

But he didn't advance from the playing field with the ball. He met the goalline simultaneously to possession, so it is sort of part of it.

I'm missing something because meeting the goalline while simultaneously establishing possession is a touchdown...

MOtorboat
10-21-2013, 10:30 PM
I'm missing something because meeting the goalline while simultaneously establishing possession is a touchdown...

Let me add a word to clarify:


It is.

But he didn't advance from the playing field with the ball. He met the goalline simultaneously to possible possession, so it is sort of part of it.

Buff
10-21-2013, 10:32 PM
True, we definitely are looking at it with the benefit of hindsight (which does say it was probably worth a challenge), but at the time, it wasn't your last shot at 6, and you are behind in the 4th, so I can kind of get it.

But given the strange gamble last week for almost no reward, it does seem a bit odd that he wouldn't challenge this, but I guess erratic is erratic.

I think I'll start a thread on why I don't think Fox is that good of a coach and the people around him are making him look better than he is.

My last point and then I'll quit beating a dead horse: the "possess through the process of the catch" rule has been an emphasis in the off-season the last couple years. The rules committee has gone to great lengths to try and clarify it since the Calvin Johnson controversy. So to the casual fan it might seem like a gray area worthy of a challenge, but a coach who has been subject to all of the off-season officiating meetings and knows that referees require the WR to hold onto the ball after they hit the ground probably wouldn't even consider it. I'm not trying to be condescending, I just think it's more black and white than you believe it to be, and got the impression that Fox thought so too based on his press conference answer today.

NightTrainLayne
10-21-2013, 10:35 PM
My last point and then I'll quit beating a dead horse: the "possess through the process of the catch" rule has been an emphasis in the off-season the last couple years. The rules committee has gone to great lengths to try and clarify it since the Calvin Johnson controversy. So to the casual fan it might seem like a gray area worthy of a challenge, but a coach who has been subject to all of the off-season officiating meetings and knows that referees require the WR to hold onto the ball after they hit the ground probably wouldn't even consider it. I'm not trying to be condescending, I just think it's more black and white than you believe it to be, and got the impression that Fox thought so too based on his press conference answer today.

Exactly.

No way is the call that got made going to be reversed.

Alternatively, had the referee initially signaled a Touchdown for Decker, I have absolutely zero doubt that the play would have been overturned during the automatic review based on the way these types of plays have been handled the past 2-3 years. There is just no way we are going to win that challenge.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2013, 12:08 AM
The "no way" thing is pretty strong language considering the things we've seen upheld and over turned over the years. Personally, I think it should have been challenged as he caught the ball, and turned making a move bfore extending to put the ball OVER the pylon with BOTH hands on the ball. That, to me, is a TD.

Poet
10-22-2013, 12:23 AM
A touchdown is scored when the ball carrier breaks the plane with possession. You can break the plane and not have possession of the ball. You can then establish control and score a TD. You, as Decker demonstrated, can break the plane while establishing control, fail to establish said control, and have the play result in an incomplete.


The play was not a touchdown.

topscribe
10-22-2013, 01:25 AM
I would imagine that would come into effect if a player was streaking down the sideline and someone on the bench came out and tackled him or something. :lol:
Good catch on that MHS you sent me, BW. Decker was indeed reaching for
the pylon during his second step, not after. That might change things a bit.
Thanks.
.

chazoe60
10-22-2013, 06:46 AM
In the end we were two guys holding onto the ball and one guy blocking better away from beating the second best team in the AFC (we're still the best team) in their house on a night when we played like shit.

The more I think about it the less I'm upset about it.

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 07:19 AM
So boys, have we figured out who's dick is longest yet?

wayninja
10-22-2013, 09:09 AM
So boys, have we figured out who's dick is longest yet?

Not yet, but you were eliminated on page 1.

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 09:11 AM
Not yet, but you were eliminated on page 1.

Can't win if you aren't competing. :shrug:

wayninja
10-22-2013, 10:59 AM
Can't win if you aren't competing. :shrug:

You had me at can't win.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-22-2013, 11:01 AM
You had me at can't win.


Can't win if you aren't competing. :shrug:

http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y511/foxylutely/Book%20Covers/FriendsorLovers-SaraYork_zpscf4c3c9c.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/foxylutely/media/Book%20Covers/FriendsorLovers-SaraYork_zpscf4c3c9c.jpg.html)

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 11:21 AM
http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y511/foxylutely/Book%20Covers/FriendsorLovers-SaraYork_zpscf4c3c9c.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/foxylutely/media/Book%20Covers/FriendsorLovers-SaraYork_zpscf4c3c9c.jpg.html)

I wish I could quit wayninja.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 11:22 AM
I wish I could quit wayninja.

You are too much for me tink, you sonofawhoreson bitch!

Buff
10-22-2013, 11:34 AM
I wish I could quit wayninja.

I really enjoy his posting style and would like to know more about him.

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 11:35 AM
I really enjoy his posting style and would like to know more about him.

I'm curious if he wears cologne, or goes au natural.

BroncoJoe
10-22-2013, 11:36 AM
Ruling on the field would have been upheld. Not conclusive to overturn. Good no challenge decision. Unfortunately the same could be said if it was ruled a TD on the field.

Buff
10-22-2013, 11:37 AM
I'm curious if he wears cologne, or goes au natural.

Do you think he prefers cool ranch or nacho cheesier doritos?

BroncoJoe
10-22-2013, 11:38 AM
Do you think he prefers cool ranch or nacho cheesier doritos?

That is not a fair question. Plus, what about original?

topscribe
10-22-2013, 12:35 PM
Meanwhile, back at Broncos Forums . . .
.

slim
10-22-2013, 12:36 PM
Doritos are overrated

BroncoJoe
10-22-2013, 12:36 PM
Doritos are overrated

You take that back!

Poet
10-22-2013, 12:37 PM
Doritos are overrated

I have started to like them less as I have aged.

slim
10-22-2013, 12:38 PM
You take that back!

Sorry, Joe. That is just how I feel about it.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 12:44 PM
I really enjoy his posting style and would like to know more about him.

I like boats, but not the ocean. I go to a lake in the summer with my family up in the mountains. There's a long wooden dock and a boathouse with boards missing from the roof, and a place I used to crawl underneath to be alone. I'm a sucker for French poetry and rhinestones. I'm very generous. I'm kind to strangers and children, and when I stand in the snow I look like an angel.

Buff
10-22-2013, 12:47 PM
Doritos are overrated

You are the worst fat ass I know.

Poet
10-22-2013, 12:48 PM
You are the worst fat ass I know.

Doritos, Bagels, and doughnuts suck.

Slim's not a fatty anymore. The last picture of him that I saw convinced me of this.

BroncoJoe
10-22-2013, 12:50 PM
I have started to like them less as I have aged.

You're not doing it right.

slim
10-22-2013, 12:53 PM
Doritos, Bagels, and doughnuts suck.

Slim's not a fatty anymore. The last picture of him that I saw convinced me of this.

Yes, doughnuts I can live without.

slim
10-22-2013, 12:53 PM
I like boats, but not the ocean. I go to a lake in the summer with my family up in the mountains. There's a long wooden dock and a boathouse with boards missing from the roof, and a place I used to crawl underneath to be alone. I'm a sucker for French poetry and rhinestones. I'm very generous. I'm kind to strangers and children, and when I stand in the snow I look like an angel.

Life insurance....I got a feeling you ain't got any. Am I right or am I right? Or am I right? Am I right?

Poet
10-22-2013, 12:59 PM
You're not doing it right.

Well, you'd know about being old.

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 12:59 PM
Do you think he prefers cool ranch or nacho cheesier doritos?

I think he's more of a Hot Cheetos type of guy. Imagine him with his red stained fingers.

BroncoJoe
10-22-2013, 01:01 PM
Well, you'd know about being old.

I prefer Mid-Life, tia.

Joel
10-22-2013, 01:07 PM
But it was all the way to the ground, my friend. Decker had completely rolled
over and was on his back when the ball came out. I don't know how it could
be any more clear than that.
.
That's what I saw, but it was close. We have the advantage of replay, slow-mo, zooms and the like; I don't think the ref on the field made the right call (and do think there was a homefield bias throughout the game, else their DBs wouldn't have gotten away with nearly as much,) but I understand why the ref made the call he did. And because that was the call on the field it would've been VERY hard to reverse; it's hard to argue the replay is incontrovertible. Especially since we've spent 11 pages debating it for two days now. :tongue:

wayninja
10-22-2013, 01:10 PM
I've been told our debate about it akin to phallus measuring, comparing.

slim
10-22-2013, 01:15 PM
I have a ruler in my desk, if anyone needs it.

Joel
10-22-2013, 01:15 PM
I'm not even sure that's necessarily the Calvin Johnson rule, either. He puts two feet down and lunges, during that lunge he loses the football. Even in the field of play it's quite possible that's ruled an incomplete pass because he doesn't maintain control of the football through the "football move."
He didn't lose it during the lunge, else we wouldn't be debating it (well, most of us wouldn't.) It's secure throughout the lunge, then he hits the ground on his side, rolls over on his back and then—only then—the ball shoots out toward the ref: Just like receivers toss balls to refs after TD and other catches all the time. Put it this way: If a receiver's making a catch and goes down, how long must he hold onto it to avoid having it ruled incomplete? Not just "all the way to the ground," because Decker did that and rolled completely over before the ball was free.

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 01:19 PM
So if the "It's a touchdown" guys win the debate, do the Broncos get the 6 points?

slim
10-22-2013, 01:22 PM
So if the "It's a touchdown" guys win the debate, do the Broncos get the 6 points?

No, but the guys on the other side will have learned how the rules work. Edification is always a good thing..

Joel
10-22-2013, 01:32 PM
Here's the rule that applies to the end of the play.
Actually, I think wayninja has it right: That rule only applies to determining what used to be called "possession and control," but the other rule preempts that:


a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Look at the gif again: Decker (a) secured control of the ball, (b) touched the ground inbounds with BOTH feet and (c) maintains control long enough after fulfilling (a) and (b) to perform an act common to the game.
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3426847/decker.gif
In other words, he didn't have to maintain control as he's went to the ground because it was ALREADY a catch BEFORE he hit; the only question is where to spot the ball.

Again, look closely at the gif, because it looks like: Control, both feet, pylon-lunge, in that order. Calling it incomplete because it came out after he hit the ground is basically saying ANY catch on the sideline becomes an incomplete if the ball pops out on the tackle, no matter how many steps the receiver takes inbounds. After all, the rule only requires two, and Decker took them, with control, so evidently the number of steps with control don't matter: Catch it at your goal line, streak down the sideline and, if they can knock out while tackling you at THEIR goal line: Incomplete pass; 2nd and 10 from your 1.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 01:35 PM
Actually, I think wayninja has it right: That rule only applies to determining what used to be called "possession and control," but the other rule preempts that:


Look at the gif again: Decker (a) secured control of the ball, (b) touched the ground inbounds with BOTH feet and (c) maintains control long enough after fulfilling (a) and (b) to perform an act common to the game.
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3426847/decker.gif
In other words, he didn't have to maintain control as he's went to the ground because it was ALREADY a catch BEFORE he hit; the only question is where to spot the ball.

Again, look closely at the gif, because it looks like: Control, both feet, pylon-lunge, in that order. Calling it incomplete because it came out after he hit the ground is basically saying ANY catch on the sideline becomes an incomplete if the ball pops out on the tackle, no matter how many steps the receiver takes inbounds. After all, the rule only requires two, and Decker took them, with control, so evidently the number of steps with control don't matter: Catch it at your goal line, streak down the sideline and, if they can knock out while tackling you at THEIR goal line: Incomplete pass; 2nd and 10 from your 1.

Look at the note in the rules, he doesn't even need to perform a football act, he only has to maintain possession long enough to do so. So whether or not the "lunge" was a football act was irrelevant, he had possession long enough (IMO) to perform a football act.

Having said that, I really don't have a convincing counter-argument to the 'going to the ground' argument against me. I've tried, and it's just a damn good argument.

slim
10-22-2013, 01:39 PM
Actually, I think wayninja has it right: That rule only applies to determining what used to be called "possession and control," but the other rule preempts that:


Look at the gif again: Decker (a) secured control of the ball, (b) touched the ground inbounds with BOTH feet and (c) maintains control long enough after fulfilling (a) and (b) to perform an act common to the game.
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3426847/decker.gif
In other words, he didn't have to maintain control as he's went to the ground because it was ALREADY a catch BEFORE he hit; the only question is where to spot the ball.

Again, look closely at the gif, because it looks like: Control, both feet, pylon-lunge, in that order. Calling it incomplete because it came out after he hit the ground is basically saying ANY catch on the sideline becomes an incomplete if the ball pops out on the tackle, no matter how many steps the receiver takes inbounds. After all, the rule only requires two, and Decker took them, with control, so evidently the number of steps with control don't matter: Catch it at your goal line, streak down the sideline and, if they can knock out while tackling you at THEIR goal line: Incomplete pass; 2nd and 10 from your 1.

This is exactly right. Once he has control and makes a football move, it is a catch.

If this were in the open field and a WR controls it and makes a football move (let's say he jukes someone), then he falls down and the ball pops out, it would be a fumble, not an incomplete pass.

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 01:40 PM
No, but the guys on the other side will have learned how the rules work. Edification is always a good thing..

But what if the "other side" just wants to argue for the sake of arguing? I'm pretty sure that I had made my opinion by the 40th post in this thread, and the only new information that has been presented since is the actual rule of what qualifies as a touchdown that wayninja had posted.

I guess the fascination of this argubation was lost on me by post #75.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 01:40 PM
But what if the "other side" just wants to argue for the sake of arguing? I'm pretty sure that I had made my opinion by the 40th post in this thread, and the only new information that has been presented since is the actual rule of what qualifies as a touchdown that wayninja had posted.

I guess the fascination of this argubation was lost on me by post #75.

Jesus, then find another ******* thread.

slim
10-22-2013, 01:41 PM
But what if the "other side" just wants to argue for the sake of arguing? I'm pretty sure that I had made my opinion by the 40th post in this thread, and the only new information that has been presented since is the actual rule of what qualifies as a touchdown that wayninja had posted.

I guess the fascination of this argubation was lost on me by post #75.

Yeah, at this point I don't really care either. But, I am bored and no one is hanging out in the lounge. So what's a boy to do?

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 01:42 PM
Jesus, then find another ******* thread.

I like the part where you snipped out where I actually gave you credit.

XKCD verse #386 is your gospel.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 01:44 PM
I like the part where you snipped out where I actually gave you credit.

XKCD verse #386 is your gospel.

I snipped nothing out. WTF are you talking about?

Also, I don't care about credit. If you don't like the debate, what can I tell you. Don't debate. Find other ways to fill out your day?

Thnikkaman
10-22-2013, 01:47 PM
I snipped nothing out. WTF are you talking about?

Also, I don't care about credit. If you don't like the debate, what can I tell you. Don't debate. Find other ways to fill out your day?

Yep you're right. Thought I formatted my post differently.

Debate is dandy until it becomes a "I'm right", no "I'm right" exercise, but that's what some people like, so I'll just leave it alone.

Joel
10-22-2013, 01:48 PM
I think this is an important distinction. Does the football move have to be made AFTER the two steps, or can it be made DURING the two steps. The way I interpret the rule, you have to take the 2 steps, THEN make a football move. If this is the case, I don't think you can call his reaching for the pylon a football move as it happened WHILE he was taking his two steps. I would be interested in seeing clarification on that though.
He got the second foot down while in the act of (i.e. before completing) the lunge; he hit the pylon right after his second step with possession and control. The lunge is as much common to the game at the end as at the beginning; if we want to parse it really finely, pulling the ball back AFTER the lunge is a move common to the game, and that definitely happened after the second foot down inbounds with possession and control.


Look at the note in the rules, he doesn't even need to perform a football act, he only has to maintain possession long enough to do so. So whether or not the "lunge" was a football act was irrelevant, he had possession long enough (IMO) to perform a football act.

Having said that, I really don't have a convincing counter-argument to the 'going to the ground' argument against me. I've tried, and it's just a damn good argument.
I don't think that can be read as "has it long enough for a move common to the game, whether or not one actually IS made." Even if that were the intent, if no such move is made, how can we establish the receiver had possession lone enough to make one? The best arbiter of whether he had the ball long enough to make such a move is where he DID make one; then it's cut and dried.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 01:52 PM
I don't think that can be read as "has it long enough for a move common to the game, whether or not one actually IS made." Even if that were the intent, if no such move is made, how can we establish the receiver had possession lone enough to make one? The best arbiter of whether he had the ball long enough to make such a move is where he DID make one; then it's cut and dried.

I'm not sure how to interpret it any other way. Here is the verbiage:


(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long
enough to do so.

If you have another interpretation on that, I'm interested in what it is.

topscribe
10-22-2013, 02:57 PM
Another article on the Decker TD issue. Well worth reading:

http://www.milehighreport.com/2013/10/22/4865250/deckers-bobbled-balls-noo-everybodys-wrong-bronco-mike-can-i-get-a-gif
.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:00 PM
I don't think he maintained control of the ball long enough to preform said act, but that is just my opinion. By the time he had taken his second step, he was on his way to the ground. I'm not sure that you can have time to perform a football act as you are on your way to the ground. That is up to the interpretation of the ref I guess. As others have said though, you can't change that type of judgement call on a review.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2013, 03:03 PM
I agree. It was a Touchdown from how I see it. No bobble, and both hands securely holding the ball as he's reaching TO the pylon. THats not a "didn't show possission".... that's a fumble after goign to the ground out of bounds. SHOULD have been reviewed, and SHOULD have been a TD. I think the writer is spot on.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:03 PM
I think this play makes for a pretty fascinating case discussion though. It brings into play rules on making a catch in general, making a sideline catch, and making a TD catch. Given all of those variables, it's possible none of us have the 100% correct answer on this. Given that we have had time to look at all these replays and comb over the rules and still can't come to a decision, just imagine how much tougher it is when you have to see that play at full speed and make a snap ruling.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 03:05 PM
I think this play makes for a pretty fascinating case discussion though. It brings into play rules on making a catch in general, making a sideline catch, and making a TD catch. Given all of those variables, it's possible none of us have the 100% correct answer on this. Given that we have had time to look at all these replays and comb over the rules and still can't come to a decision, just imagine how much tougher it is when you have to see that play at full speed and make a snap ruling.

True, but as the article top pointed out, why not rule it a touchdown? That gives you the luxury of getting a second look at it. Calling it a non-touchdown kills any ability to look at it again without a challenge. Seems like a no-brainer to me that all refs should err on the side of points. Isn't that what the auto review is for?

Ravage!!!
10-22-2013, 03:08 PM
True, but as the article top pointed out, why not rule it a touchdown? That gives you the luxury of getting a second look at it. Calling it a non-touchdown kills any ability to look at it again without a challenge. Seems like a no-brainer to me that all refs should err on the side of points. Isn't that what the auto review is for?

EXACTLY... just as they are FINALLY learning to do with fumbles... and have now decided to make ALL turnovers and TDs automatically reviewed. Had the ref called it a TD, it would have gone under automatic review, and THEN they could have called it differently had it been incorrect. This needs to be fixed, from the ref's persepctive, as well.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:10 PM
True, but as the article top pointed out, why not rule it a touchdown? That gives you the luxury of getting a second look at it. Calling it a non-touchdown kills any ability to look at it again without a challenge. Seems like a no-brainer to me that all refs should err on the side of points. Isn't that what the auto review is for?

I'm torn on this. One one hand, it makes sense because calling it a TD gives you a chance to review it. On the other hand, a play like that is so bang-bang it's probably impossible to have definitive evidence to overturn it regardless of what you call. Given that, calling a TD for the sake of a review pretty much guarantees a TD since you can't overturn it. In general, I'm in favor of the ref calling what they actually see instead of just guessing and making the call that can more easily be reviewed. Fox had challenges left, so the play was reviewable regardless of what the ref called. Given this, I have no problem with him making his best judgement on the play at the time.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:12 PM
EXACTLY... just as they are FINALLY learning to do with fumbles... and have now decided to make ALL turnovers and TDs automatically reviewed. Had the ref called it a TD, it would have gone under automatic review, and THEN they could have called it differently had it been incorrect. This needs to be fixed, from the ref's persepctive, as well.

But Fox had challenges left. So either way they could have reviewed the play. It's different with fumbles since blowing the play dead could cost the defense a touchdown, even if they are granted the recovery. In this case, it wouldn't have mattered what the ref called because they could have reviewed it and given the proper ruling either way.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 03:17 PM
I'm torn on this. One one hand, it makes sense because calling it a TD gives you a chance to review it. On the other hand, a play like that is so bang-bang it's probably impossible to have definitive evidence to overturn it regardless of what you call. Given that, calling a TD for the sake of a review pretty much guarantees a TD since you can't overturn it. In general, I'm in favor of the ref calling what they actually see instead of just guessing and making the call that can more easily be reviewed. Fox had challenges left, so the play was reviewable regardless of what the ref called. Given this, I have no problem with him making his best judgement on the play at the time.

I don't see why you couldn't overturn it. There is plenty of evidence on the replay to make your judgement on the rule. Clearly this thread shows that there are differing opinions on where that line is, but not from lack of film evidence.

Buff
10-22-2013, 03:19 PM
EXACTLY... just as they are FINALLY learning to do with fumbles... and have now decided to make ALL turnovers and TDs automatically reviewed. Had the ref called it a TD, it would have gone under automatic review, and THEN they could have called it differently had it been incorrect. This needs to be fixed, from the ref's persepctive, as well.

I don't think the fumble comparison works. With a fumble, the refs could affect a team's ability to gain possession by blowing it dead prematurely. So they purposely err on the side of caution so as not to negatively affect a team's ability to recover a (possible) fumble.

With the play in question, by ruling it a TD they would require definitive video evidence to overturn it. Thus, they are creating an artificial ruling to preserve a coach's challenge. Not to preserve a team's ability to possess the ball.

Not sure if that makes sense... But I don't think it's a 1:1 comparison.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:22 PM
I don't see why you couldn't overturn it. There is plenty of evidence on the replay to make your judgement on the rule. Clearly this thread shows that there are differing opinions on where that line is, but not from lack of film evidence.

I'm just saying in general on such a bang-bang play, there is a chance that there won't be enough evidence on video to overturn the call. Given this, there is a chance that whatever the ref calls cannot be overturned. That being the case, if the refs thinks it was incomplete at first, but calls it a TD just so they can review it, he is risking costing the Colts a TD against unfairly.

This is completely different than calling fumbles. In this case, I think the refs should err on the side of calling it a fumble and looking at the replay, because blowing the play dead can cost the defense the chance to return it for a TD.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:25 PM
I don't think the fumble comparison works. With a fumble, the refs could affect a team's ability to gain possession by blowing it dead prematurely. So they purposely err on the side of caution so as not to negatively affect a team's ability to recover a (possible) fumble.

With the play in question, by ruling it a TD they would require definitive video evidence to overturn it. Thus, they are creating an artificial ruling to preserve a coach's challenge. Not to preserve a team's ability to possess the ball.

Not sure if that makes sense... But I don't think it's a 1:1 comparison.

Makes total sense. Seems to be pretty much what I am saying too. No matter what the ref called on the Decker play, they could have reviewed the play and possibly changed it to the correct call. With a fumble, blowing the whistle early potentially eliminates that possibility.

For clarification, though, a defense can still be awarded a fumble recovery even if the ref blows the whistle early. It just has to be clear that the D would have definitely recovered the fumble. They changed this rule after the Cutler-Hochuli play that gave us that win over SD several years back.

slim
10-22-2013, 03:27 PM
I don't like the whole "well they should have called it this way because it was going to be reviewed anyway" take. Officials can't be expected to do that. They have to call the play as the see it and let the chips fall where they may.

Buff
10-22-2013, 03:30 PM
Makes total sense. Seems to be pretty much what I am saying too. No matter what the ref called on the Decker play, they could have reviewed the play and possibly changed it to the correct call. With a fumble, blowing the whistle early potentially eliminates that possibility.

For clarification, though, a defense can still be awarded a fumble recovery even if the ref blows the whistle early. It just has to be clear that the D would have definitely recovered the fumble. They changed this rule after the Cutler-Hochuli play that gave us that win over SD several years back.

It's true, the defense can still get the ball, but that exact play happened to Indy and instead of getting credit for recovering the fumble and scoring a TD, they got the ball where the whistle was blown. So the ref's whistle still negatively impacted them, though not as badly as it would have prior to the Hochuli ruling.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:33 PM
I don't like the whole "well they should have called it this way because it was going to be reviewed anyway" take. Officials can't be expected to do that. They have to call the play as the see it and let the chips fall where they may.

I do get it in the case of fumbles for the reasons mentioned above, but otherwise i totally agree with you here.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:35 PM
It's true, the defense can still get the ball, but that exact play happened to Indy and instead of getting credit for recovering the fumble and scoring a TD, they got the ball where the whistle was blown. So the ref's whistle still negatively impacted them, though not as badly as it would have prior to the Hochuli ruling.

Yeah I'm agreeing with you on the TD point, I was just making that clarification that the whistle at least wouldn't cost them the turnover.

Buff
10-22-2013, 03:41 PM
Yeah I'm agreeing with you on the TD point, I was just making that clarification that the whistle at least wouldn't cost them the turnover.

And I was just adding additional clarification to your point of clarification. :D

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 03:45 PM
And I was just adding additional clarification to your point of clarification. :D

Well now that we are all clear...

Ravage!!!
10-22-2013, 04:05 PM
I don't think the fumble comparison works. With a fumble, the refs could affect a team's ability to gain possession by blowing it dead prematurely. So they purposely err on the side of caution so as not to negatively affect a team's ability to recover a (possible) fumble.

With the play in question, by ruling it a TD they would require definitive video evidence to overturn it. Thus, they are creating an artificial ruling to preserve a coach's challenge. Not to preserve a team's ability to possess the ball.

Not sure if that makes sense... But I don't think it's a 1:1 comparison.

it's not a 1:1 comparison, but the point I ws making is that Refs need to learn, and practice, situations in which to use caution so that a replay CAN ome into play...ESPECIALLY a play that did involve a TD. ALL Touchdowns are now reviewed so that one team doesn't get the benefit over another team, and forcing a team to use a timeout in order to get the score. I'm saying that this call EASILY could have been called a TD, and probably would not have been overturned because it was such a CLOSE call. But when you make a ruling that has NO chance of being reviewed because of the "nature of the call"...then something needs to be altered.

The refs changed their "Reactions" on calling a ball 'down by contact" BECAUSE they knew it could/would be reviewed. They no longer simply blow the whistle "split second" reaction because they have learned.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 05:06 PM
it's not a 1:1 comparison, but the point I ws making is that Refs need to learn, and practice, situations in which to use caution so that a replay CAN ome into play...ESPECIALLY a play that did involve a TD. ALL Touchdowns are now reviewed so that one team doesn't get the benefit over another team, and forcing a team to use a timeout in order to get the score. I'm saying that this call EASILY could have been called a TD, and probably would not have been overturned because it was such a CLOSE call. But when you make a ruling that has NO chance of being reviewed because of the "nature of the call"...then something needs to be altered.

The refs changed their "Reactions" on calling a ball 'down by contact" BECAUSE they knew it could/would be reviewed. They no longer simply blow the whistle "split second" reaction because they have learned.

But that doesn't apply to the Decker call.

NightTrainLayne
10-22-2013, 05:10 PM
Another article on the Decker TD issue. Well worth reading:

http://www.milehighreport.com/2013/10/22/4865250/deckers-bobbled-balls-noo-everybodys-wrong-bronco-mike-can-i-get-a-gif
.

Once again, the MHR guy is totally ignoring the Item in the rule "Going to the Ground". It's part of the rule for a reason, and it has to be evaluated in context of this play. I've posted the entire rule, and this Item in the thread previously.

Poet
10-22-2013, 05:15 PM
Once again, the MHR guy is totally ignoring the Item in the rule "Going to the Ground". It's part of the rule for a reason, and it has to be evaluated in context of this play. I've posted the entire rule, and this Item in the thread previously.

When you go to the ground, you have to maintain possession. If you don't, it's not catch. This is not that complicated.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 05:15 PM
Once again, the MHR guy is totally ignoring the Item in the rule "Going to the Ground". It's part of the rule for a reason, and it has to be evaluated in context of this play. I've posted the entire rule, and this Item in the thread previously.

To be fair, he doesn't ignore it, although I'm not sure his argument breaks the bank on it either:


Proponents who said it wasn't a catch

You all that said he lost control going to the ground are thinking of the play wrong. I think you all are thinking in terms of him moving laterally (side to side) heading out of bounds, as oppose to moving vertically (up and down the field). Makes since because if he was in the motion of making the catch while his momentum was carrying him out of bounds, then he loses control going out of bounds (moving laterally) when he hit the ground. However, if you take that same situation, and the players shoulders are pointed towards the end zone, and not out of bounds, then you can understand what we who think it was a Touchdown mean.

Skinny
10-22-2013, 05:19 PM
Would have been interesting if they reviewed it....


Vincent Brown Dives for Pylon (http://www.chargers.com/multimedia/videos/Brown-Dives-for-Pylon/8568fd5b-8471-4a5d-9b15-5980d1e7b9df)

slim
10-22-2013, 05:20 PM
When you go to the ground, you have to maintain possession. If you don't, it's not catch. This is not that complicated.

This only applies if he is falling to the ground while in the process of making a catch. Clearly if a reciever controls a ball and then makes a football move it is a catch. For example, control + spin move in the open field = catch. Now, if he falls down and the ball pops out then it is a fumble, not an incomplete pass.

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 05:21 PM
This only applies if he is falling to the ground while in the process of making a catch. Clearly if a reciever controls a ball and then makes a football move it is a catch. For example, control + spin move in the open field = catch. Now, if he falls down and the ball pops out then it is a fumble, not an incomplete pass.

Except Decker didn't make a football move after getting two feet down. He reached the ball at the pylon as his second foot was landing, so you can't count that as his football move. It has to happen AFTER both feet are down with possession.

slim
10-22-2013, 05:23 PM
Except Decker didn't make a football move after getting two feet down. He reached the ball at the pylon as his second foot was landing, so you can't count that as his football move. It has to happen AFTER both feet are down with possession.

I didn't see it that way.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 05:24 PM
This only applies if he is falling to the ground while in the process of making a catch. Clearly if a reciever controls a ball and then makes a football move it is a catch. For example, control + spin move in the open field = catch. Now, if he falls down and the ball pops out then it is a fumble, not an incomplete pass.

This is the crux of the argument. Some people think he was in the process of a catch and some believe he complete that process. We've cited the rules, it's really just a judgment call. I do believe that it's hard to argue against the fact that he was 'going to the ground', but it's really not as black and white as some are making it out to be.

Poet
10-22-2013, 05:24 PM
This only applies if he is falling to the ground while in the process of making a catch. Clearly if a reciever controls a ball and then makes a football move it is a catch. For example, control + spin move in the open field = catch. Now, if he falls down and the ball pops out then it is a fumble, not an incomplete pass.

But he never got possession before he started to fall.

slim
10-22-2013, 05:25 PM
But he never got possession before he started to fall.

See the post right before yours.

We can agree to disagree.

Buff
10-22-2013, 05:29 PM
it's not a 1:1 comparison, but the point I ws making is that Refs need to learn, and practice, situations in which to use caution so that a replay CAN ome into play...ESPECIALLY a play that did involve a TD. ALL Touchdowns are now reviewed so that one team doesn't get the benefit over another team, and forcing a team to use a timeout in order to get the score. I'm saying that this call EASILY could have been called a TD, and probably would not have been overturned because it was such a CLOSE call. But when you make a ruling that has NO chance of being reviewed because of the "nature of the call"...then something needs to be altered.

The refs changed their "Reactions" on calling a ball 'down by contact" BECAUSE they knew it could/would be reviewed. They no longer simply blow the whistle "split second" reaction because they have learned.

I don't agree with your logic... A better solution would be not limiting coaches to 2 challenges. I don't think refs should be basing their rulings on whether or not it will allow for replay, except in cases where a premature whistle can be prevented.

Poet
10-22-2013, 05:29 PM
See the post right before yours.

We can agree to disagree.

Well of course we can. We're adults.

But, and I'm sure this goes without saying...

**** you!

wayninja
10-22-2013, 05:34 PM
I don't agree with your logic... A better solution would be not limiting coaches to 2 challenges. I don't think refs should be basing their rulings on whether or not it will allow for replay, except in cases where a premature whistle can be prevented.

If a replay is in use, they should always err on the side that calls for that replay. But I can see how purists could take issue with that. Either that or simply allow booth reviews at the refs discretion...

Wasn't replay like that at one point?

Buff
10-22-2013, 05:38 PM
If a replay is in use, they should always err on the side that calls for that replay. But I can see how purists could take issue with that. Either that or simply allow booth reviews at the refs discretion...

Wasn't replay like that at one point?

At that point you are changing the game to accommodate replay. A better solution is to change replay to accommodate the game. Why ask a referee to change the way he officiates when you could accomplish the same thing by allowing coaches to challenge more plays? Or, to your point, allow booth reviews at the ref's discretion. Either of those options are better than asking a referee to rule against their initial judgement.

Poet
10-22-2013, 05:40 PM
At that point you are changing the game to accommodate replay. A better solution is to change replay to accommodate the game. Why ask a referee to change the way he officiates when you could accomplish the same thing by allowing coaches to challenge more plays? Or, to your point, allow booth reviews at the ref's discretion. Either of those options are better than asking a referee to rule against their initial judgement.

I agree.

slim
10-22-2013, 05:45 PM
Well of course we can. We're adults.

But, and I'm sure this goes without saying...

**** you!

You are not a nice person.

Poet
10-22-2013, 05:46 PM
You are not a nice person.

I was raised better than this.

wayninja
10-22-2013, 07:22 PM
At that point you are changing the game to accommodate replay. A better solution is to change replay to accommodate the game. Why ask a referee to change the way he officiates when you could accomplish the same thing by allowing coaches to challenge more plays? Or, to your point, allow booth reviews at the ref's discretion. Either of those options are better than asking a referee to rule against their initial judgement.

I'm not sure how erring on the side that a replay is triggered by is accommodating the game to replay, can you elaborate? The game doesn't change, and 'the way referee's officiate' changes all the time with yearly rules changes and emphasis on certain types of plays or outcomes (i.e. player safety), so I'm not sure that's really doing something that isn't happening already.

But yeah, I agree more challenges (or at least not losing a timeout for a winning challenge) or discretionary reviews are a better solution.

Nomad
10-22-2013, 07:24 PM
Has the play been overturned yet!:lol:

topscribe
10-22-2013, 07:27 PM
Once again, the MHR guy is totally ignoring the Item in the rule "Going to the Ground". It's part of the rule for a reason, and it has to be evaluated in context of this play. I've posted the entire rule, and this Item in the thread previously.
Warren333 is saying the play was over before Decker ever went to the ground.
After several reviews, I came to the same conclusion. BroncoWave made a very
astute observation that Decker had not completed two full steps before his
"football move," which may be the only reason it was not a TD, IMO. What
happened after Decker went out of bounds is immaterial, IMO. Had he made
two full steps and did the football move of hitting the pylon, the play was
over right there.
.

MOtorboat
10-22-2013, 07:30 PM
Warren333 is saying the play was over before Decker ever went to the ground.
After several reviews, I came to the same conclusion. BroncoWave made a very
astute observation that Decker had not completed two full steps before his
"football move," which may be the only reason it was not a TD, IMO. What
happened after Decker went out of bounds is immaterial, IMO. Had he made
two full steps and did the football move of hitting the pylon, the play was
over right there.
.

A lot of people agree with you that it SHOULD be immaterial. And I'm not saying I disagree.

But the rule disagrees. And the rule is what the officials have to use.

Buff
10-22-2013, 08:31 PM
I'm not sure how erring on the side that a replay is triggered by is accommodating the game to replay, can you elaborate? The game doesn't change, and 'the way referee's officiate' changes all the time with yearly rules changes and emphasis on certain types of plays or outcomes (i.e. player safety), so I'm not sure that's really doing something that isn't happening already.

But yeah, I agree more challenges (or at least not losing a timeout for a \winning challenge) or discretionary reviews are a better solution.

The "Calvin Johnson Rule" wasn't a rule change, but an emphasis on an already existing rule which the rules committee upheld in 2011. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/03/nfl-will-not-make-changes-to-the-calvin-johnson-rule/1#.UmcakBBsvVQ

The reason they emphasized it was basically for situations like this one, where a previously gray area was made black and white for the sake of clarity and uniformity. My contention is that you either change the existing rule (which the rules committee has chosen not to do), or you change the replay rules to allow for more challenges... But you shouldn't create conditions where more uncertainty is introduced into the way a game is officiated, which necessarily has a trickle down effect on the game itself. What Rav is suggesting, is basically the opposite goal of the rules committee. They addressed it by creating clarity around the rule... So there is no reason to make a change to the way the game is officiated to create more discretion when the rules committee is trying to eliminate the judgement call that Rav wants the referees to make.

topscribe
10-22-2013, 08:45 PM
A lot of people agree with you that it SHOULD be immaterial. And I'm not saying I disagree.

But the rule disagrees. And the rule is what the officials have to use.
I've seen the rules, and I've analyzed them and seen them analyzed. There
is a point when a receiver becomes a runner. The fact that the play was ruled
an incompletion may be because he had not taken enough steps to be
deemed a runner, and that is what BroncoWave implied, I believe. Had he
taken enough steps, then his losing the ball out of bounds would have been
moot. But that would have been two full steps, which seems the usual
standard. A step-and-a-half before his football move were not enough, so
it then depended on whether he hung onto the ball. That's where we get
into the grey area.
.

MOtorboat
10-22-2013, 08:47 PM
I've seen the rules, and I've analyzed them and seen them analyzed. There
is a point when a receiver becomes a runner. The fact that the play was ruled
an incompletion may be because he had not taken enough steps to be
deemed a runner, and that is what BroncoWave implied, I believe. Had he
taken enough steps, then his losing the ball out of bounds would have been
moot. But that would have been two full steps, which seems the usual
standard. A step-and-a-half before his football move were not enough, so
it then depended on whether he hung onto the ball. That's where we get
into the grey area.
.

I would agree with that.

One and a half to two steps before going to the ground is where the gray area is.

ShaneFalco
10-22-2013, 09:27 PM
jeez yall still arguing about this?

wayninja
10-22-2013, 09:29 PM
jeez yall still arguing about this?

No, this thread has become and eyes-wide-shut-esque orgy of debased vice and anonymous sin.

Yes, we are still arguing about it, ok?

BroncoWave
10-22-2013, 10:04 PM
jeez yall still arguing about this?

It's an interesting discussion. I wouldn't call it an argument. It's been pretty civil I would say. You have the convenient option of not clicking on this thread.

Slick
10-22-2013, 11:00 PM
Broncos Mobile: Upon Further Review: Broncos at Colts | http://bit.ly/19ZrCXc
http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Upon-Further-Review-Broncos-at-Colts/3e97ccbc-50f0-487c-94b6-2287de1d8593

I found this while browsing the Broncos app on iphone.




Wish all you want, but Eric Decker's lunging-toward-the-pylon near-reception late in the third quarter was never going to be ruled a catch in the end. Had it been ruled a touchdown on the field, it would have been overturned by the required instant-replay review.
Most of the questions regarding this play are answered in the 2013 rule book -- Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3. The first, of course, regards the football coming loose; Items 1 and 2 of the article leaves no wiggle room:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting 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,the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
The question then becomes whether Decker made a "football move" when he reached the football over the goal line -- and well into the plane of the end zone, based on a reverse-angle, goal-line replay from NBC's coverage. This would turn Decker from a receiver into a runner, and change the template.
While the words "football move" do not appear in the rule book, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, subcategory (c) defines the "act common to the game," which includes "maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc."
Because Decker only managed to get his second foot down simultaneously with the reach over the goal line -- and because he was descending to the ground the entire time -- this would have required a liberal definition of the term "act common to the game."
The feet come into play in subcategory (b) of Article 3, because he must have both feet (or any part other than the hands) down and inbounds. The reach began as his right foot hits the ground; this is his first foot, as he had not established possession before getting his left foot down the first time. He then gets his left foot down to establish being in-bounds, but as he reaches, he's tumbling out of bounds.
It all depends on how you define his reach -- as a separate advance of the football or as part of the act of catching and then needing to maintain the grasp all the way to the ground -- which brings up the "Calvin Johnson rule" from Item 3 of Article 3, since the ball has crossed the plane and is in the end zone.
The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.
Thus, the rule applies regardless of whether the player is in the end zone or not.
If the catch had stood, the Broncos would have obviously been helped, but the call would have been incorrect. Refeee Carl Cheffers would have needed to possess an unusually generous perspective to have defined Decker's move as an "act common to the game," and a challenge would have been a wasted timeout.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-23-2013, 09:44 AM
Here's what Klis had to say...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncosmailbag/ci_24363716/broncos-mailbag-no-panic-peyton-manning-but-plenty


Why didn't John Fox challenge the Eric Decker pylon dive? Did he mention it in his post-game? That should have been a TD.
--Dave D., Los Angeles


Fox knew he would have lost the challenge. On that particular play, Decker has to maintain possession through the play. He lost the ball when he hit the ground -- even though he hit the ground well after crossing the pylon.

Two officials waved incomplete immediately. It's confusing because it's different for a ballcarrier -- if it was a running play, Decker would have been credited for the touchdown there -- but as a receiver, possession trumps all.



Read more: Broncos Mailbag: No panic with Peyton Manning, but plenty of problems - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncosmailbag/ci_24363716/broncos-mailbag-no-panic-peyton-manning-but-plenty#ixzz2iYXtwtd8
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

NightTrainLayne
10-23-2013, 11:58 AM
Broncos Mobile: Upon Further Review: Broncos at Colts | http://bit.ly/19ZrCXc
http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Upon-Further-Review-Broncos-at-Colts/3e97ccbc-50f0-487c-94b6-2287de1d8593

I found this while browsing the Broncos app on iphone.

Andrew Mason agrees with my analysis.

But he has passed no judgement on my penis size.

Buff
10-23-2013, 12:02 PM
Andrew Mason agrees with my analysis.

But he has passed no judgement on my penis size.

Um, I'm pretty sure it was my analysis. #LongDong

NightTrainLayne
10-23-2013, 12:04 PM
Um, I'm pretty sure it was my analysis. #LongDong

Hmmm. Well, he makes a big point about "going to the ground" which I have been preaching about for two days.

#girthbetterthanlength

MOtorboat
10-23-2013, 04:24 PM
I believe I was the first to chime in.

#EveryoneLovesMidgetDong

BroncoJoe
10-23-2013, 04:48 PM
I believe I was the first to chime in.

#EveryoneLovesMidgetDong

That's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

topscribe
10-23-2013, 05:58 PM
That's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
despicable, pathetic, disgusting.

I really don't know what's going on. Just an exercise in adjectives. :D
.