Thread: Eric Decker Touchdown discussion

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

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-fi...allenge-by-fox

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

Originally Posted by topscribe

Disagree. Take a look at this very astute analysis:

http://www.milehighreport.com/mhr-fi...allenge-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.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

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?

Originally Posted by topscribe

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. 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.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

I saw it, and I've seen it enough. 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/multime...e-b92a936f0fb7
.

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.

Originally Posted by topscribe

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/multime...e-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.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

...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.
.

Originally Posted by topscribe

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.

Originally Posted by Skinny

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.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

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
.

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.

Originally Posted by wayninja

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?

Originally Posted by topscribe

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.