Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 235

Thread: Eric Decker Touchdown discussion

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,735

    Default

    receiver has to maintain control, he never did so its not a touchdown (or a catch anywhere on the field)


    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy! View Post
    Effing school zones suck. It's only a matter of time before I get nailed in one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis View Post
    I take the fat out of the pan once no longer hot, smear it all over my genitals, then enter consenting people with my tumescent member.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Adopted Bronco:
    Mike Shanahan
    Posts
    447

    Default

    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!


  3. The Following 2 Users High Fived skins_fan82 For This Post:


  4. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayninja View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wayninja View Post
    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.
    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

  5. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOtorboat View Post
    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.
    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

  6. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Centennial (which is in Colorado)
    Adopted Bronco:
    Meck
    Posts
    27,001

    Default

    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'?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    I want to be sympathetic, but one should not have sympathy for inauthentic sorrow.
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterShake View Post
    Its like Save the Rainforest. People aren't saying, 'F**ck those other forests', its just that this particular forest is in worse shape right now.

  7. The Following User High Fived wayninja For This Post:


  8. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Bojangles View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wayninja View Post
    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.
    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

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Adopted Bronco:
    Josey Jewell
    Posts
    30,216

    Default

    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)


  10. The Following User High Fived topscribe For This Post:


  11. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Centennial (which is in Colorado)
    Adopted Bronco:
    Meck
    Posts
    27,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    I want to be sympathetic, but one should not have sympathy for inauthentic sorrow.
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterShake View Post
    Its like Save the Rainforest. People aren't saying, 'F**ck those other forests', its just that this particular forest is in worse shape right now.

  12. The Following 3 Users High Fived wayninja For This Post:


  13. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Taysom Hill
    Posts
    40,850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayninja View Post
    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.

  14. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Adopted Bronco:
    Josey Jewell
    Posts
    30,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayninja View Post
    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.
    .
    Though He slay me, I will trust in Him . . . (Job 13:15)


  15. The Following User High Fived topscribe For This Post:


  16. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Adopted Bronco:
    Phillip, Demaryius, Derek, Shane, Von,
    Posts
    47,828

    Default

    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 JOHN
    WOULD YOU RATHER WIN UGLY, OR LOSE PRETTY?

  17. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Adopted Bronco:
    Phillip, Demaryius, Derek, Shane, Von,
    Posts
    47,828

    Default

    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 JOHN
    WOULD YOU RATHER WIN UGLY, OR LOSE PRETTY?

  18. The Following User High Fived Denver Native (Carol) For This Post:


  19. #28

    Default

    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.

  20. The Following User High Fived jhildebrand For This Post:


  21. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Adopted Bronco:
    Brian Griese
    Posts
    3,868

    Default

    Bottom line.. why didn't we challenge it? We've wasted challenges on less insignificant things (Justin Blackmon's foot out of bounds)

  22. #30

    Default

    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.

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group