receiver has to maintain control, he never did so its not a touchdown (or a catch anywhere on the field)
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.
Born and raised in DC....living in Denver. I love the Redskins, and the Broncos!
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.
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.
Last edited by Joel; 10-21-2013 at 01:51 PM.
Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. —Jaded
Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
Love can't be coerced. —Me
Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. —Jaded
Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
Love can't be coerced. —Me
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'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.
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.
Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. —Jaded
Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
Love can't be coerced. —Me
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.
.
Though He slay me, I will trust in Him . . . (Job 13:15)
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.
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.
Thanks to MasterShake for my great signature
Rest in Peace - Demaryius (88) - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)#7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
THIS ONES FOR JOHNWOULD YOU RATHER WIN UGLY, OR LOSE PRETTY?
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.
Thanks to MasterShake for my great signature
Rest in Peace - Demaryius (88) - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)#7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
THIS ONES FOR JOHNWOULD YOU RATHER WIN UGLY, OR LOSE PRETTY?
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.
Bottom line.. why didn't we challenge it? We've wasted challenges on less insignificant things (Justin Blackmon's foot out of bounds)
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)