Thread: So, uhh, why wasn't that bogus catch reviewed in OT?

Originally Posted by spikerman

My guess is that it had to do with possession, or lack thereof. There's a NCAA rule (Rule 4, Section 2, Article 3) that states, "A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line."

Basically if a player is laying out of bounds and he touches a ball that is inbounds the ball is considered out of bounds. If two players are touching it and one of them goes out of bounds the same holds true - the ball is dead. If a player in the field of play touches a player who is out of bounds then nothing happens. Think of it like this: suppose an eligible receiver is lined up wide, what would stop a CB from stepping out of bounds and making contact with the receiver? In that scenario the receiver would become ineligible to be the first one to touch a forward pass.

In a nutshell a player out of bounds has to be in contact with the ball for it to be ruled dead. Was that too long winded?

One interesting thing that could happen though, is suppose that on a kickoff the ball is kicked near the sideline. A quick thinking return man could step at least one foot out of bounds as he catches the ball. Believe it or not, that would be a penalty on the kicking team for a kick out of bounds.

This is what happened in the earlier game that people are referring to. A defender out of bounds, touched a ball while it was being caught by a player in the endzone. It was ruled incomplete, because the defender was out of bounds. The key is that the out of bounds player was in contact with the ball, not just the player attempting to catch it.

Originally Posted by spikerman

I don't know if you could see it on tv, but the Bears were really rushing to get the ball snapped. The Bears didn't seem convinced that it was a catch either.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, the announcers commented on that very fact, that the Bears might have gotten away with one because they hustled to the line. Seems like my teams never have the snap to do that, or when they do the other coach quickly throws the flag or the booth steps into do it.

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

It seemed like an eternity in the stadium before the Bears snapped the ball. They showed the replay in the stadium at least three times.

My thoughts were that if the refs were going to review it, they had plenty of time to stop play. So with that in mind it was probably best to save the timeout. Calling the timeout doesn't guarantee a review.

Fair point, but by the same token it's not like you'll need that TO to allow you a comeback drive. Unless you're caught with the wrong personnel on D or bumble your snap count (and you've got another TO for those; just don't make a habit of it) all burning that TO is likely to do is make a win a tie.

Originally Posted by Joel

If it's the one I'm thinking of, the announcers commented on that very fact, that the Bears might have gotten away with one because they hustled to the line. Seems like my teams never have the snap to do that, or when they do the other coach quickly throws the flag or the booth steps into do it.

They showed a replay almost immediately, and while you can't see the ball hit the ground in the first one, you also can't see the ball secured and it being a legit catch. Then they showed it again a little slower, still inconclusive, then they showed a different angle where it appeared the ball hit the ground before being secured. I counted about a 10 second gap between snapping and showing the incriminating third replay. But the reality is, the catch should have been immediately reviewed anyway because of the importance of that pass-- it put them in FG range. Remember them reviewing the spotting of a ball just a game or two ago that hurt the broncos?

Originally Posted by vhatever

They showed a replay almost immediately, and while you can't see the ball hit the ground in the first one, you also can't see the ball secured and it being a legit catch. Then they showed it again a little slower, still inconclusive, then they showed a different angle where it appeared the ball hit the ground before being secured. I counted about a 10 second gap between snapping and showing the incriminating third replay. But the reality is, the catch should have been immediately reviewed anyway because of the importance of that pass-- it put them in FG range. Remember them reviewing the spotting of a ball just a game or two ago that hurt the broncos?

It was a catch.

No one got screwed.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

It was a catch.

No one got screwed.

That's as much as a catch as your tebow hate-on is rational.

That's great. There's absolutely nothing there that is conclusive, because the ball CAN hit the ground during a catch...

Ultimately, who gives a shit?

Its just a conspiracy of the NFL to try and beat Tebow. We all know everyone is against us, and every week the refs are trying to screw us. After all, the spot of the ball isn't jut right, they don't "review" every catch and every run to be sure its exactly right.

How on EARTH did we even play this sport before high speed, zoom in, high-definition, slow motion cameras? Soooo archaic!!

I'm sure when Tebow loses, its going to be because the REFS screwed the game up and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I'm sure when Tebow loses, its going to be because the REFS screwed the game up and nothing else.

There is an edit button... assuming you are literate it shouldn't be hard to find.

Originally Posted by vhatever

There is an edit button... assuming you are literate it shouldn't be hard to find.

what would you like for me to edit, oh brilliant layer of smack?

Originally Posted by vhatever

They showed a replay almost immediately, and while you can't see the ball hit the ground in the first one, you also can't see the ball secured and it being a legit catch. Then they showed it again a little slower, still inconclusive, then they showed a different angle where it appeared the ball hit the ground before being secured. I counted about a 10 second gap between snapping and showing the incriminating third replay. But the reality is, the catch should have been immediately reviewed anyway because of the importance of that pass-- it put them in FG range. Remember them reviewing the spotting of a ball just a game or two ago that hurt the broncos?

That was a pretty pivotal play, too, because it cost us a first down in OT; I doubt they even glance at it twice on 2nd down in the 3rd quarter. Refs aren't perfect, and don't like stopping games without solid reasons.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

That's great. There's absolutely nothing there that is conclusive, because the ball CAN hit the ground during a catch...

Ultimately, who gives a shit?

Yeah, and that's a crap rule, too; receivers get enough help from the rules without calling traps "catches."

HOWEVER, even under the Bert Emmanuel BS the ball CAN'T move around when it hits the ground, and that one had some serious lever action going on when he trapped it.

Maybe the refs just felt sorry for Barber finding every way he could to blow that game. Still wasn't enough in the end.

Originally Posted by Joel

That was a pretty pivotal play, too, because it cost us a first down in OT; I doubt they even glance at it twice on 2nd down in the 3rd quarter. Refs aren't perfect, and don't like stopping games without solid reasons.

Yeah, and that's a crap rule, too; receivers get enough help from the rules without calling traps "catches."

Wait.. you think the WRs get "help" with the rules on catching the ball compared to the past? Really? That entire "keeping the ball through the fall" thing is easier?

They can't trap it, but if they show control then hitting the ground isn't punished considering just how impossible it is to keep the ball from touching the turf, even when in COMPLETE control. So I don't think the rule is bogus.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Wait.. you think the WRs get "help" with the rules on catching the ball compared to the past? Really? That entire "keeping the ball through the fall" thing is easier?

No, that aspect isn't easier, and having to wear thigh plates now may have slowed them a hair. They also lost the rule that said it was a catch if they were pushed out when they would have otherwise landed in bounds, but that was a small loss because officials never called it anyway.

In every other way, including calling traps "catches," things are much easier now, hence the explosive stats. Making defenders wait for them to catch the ball and start running before they can hit them is DEFINITELY easier. In the old days it was "you might as well catch it--he's gonna hit you anyway." Defensive backs actively and heavily relied on the fact that as long as they didn't arrive early a punishing hit had a good chance of jarring a ball loose and was perfectly legal. Receivers don't "hear footsteps" any more because they know they're off limits until they've got the ball and turn to run. That's in addition to taking away hand checks 20 years ago. Yes, receivers have it easier now than in the old days; it's been getting progressively easier for them for decades. Short of bringing back Stickum or banning tackling altogether so it really IS the flag football many DBs call it, I can't imagine how receivers could have it easier.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

They can't trap it, but if they show control then hitting the ground isn't punished considering just how impossible it is to keep the ball from touching the turf, even when in COMPLETE control. So I don't think the rule is bogus.

I disagree, but in this case it's irrelevant, because when the ball tips forward and then back as it hits the ground the receiver very obviously lacks control.

Originally Posted by pikkiwoki

It was oh so close.



That was a potential game deciding play. Even if they didn't overturn it, it should have at least been reviewed.

You could call it either way.