Thread: Eric Decker Touchdown discussion

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

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?

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

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.

Broncos Mobile: Upon Further Review: Broncos at Colts | http://bit.ly/19ZrCXc
http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-an...6-2287de1d8593

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.

Here's what Klis had to say...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncosmai...ing-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/broncosmai...#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

Originally Posted by Slick

Broncos Mobile: Upon Further Review: Broncos at Colts | http://bit.ly/19ZrCXc
http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-an...6-2287de1d8593

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.

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

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

Originally Posted by Buff

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

I believe I was the first to chime in.

#EveryoneLovesMidgetDong

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I believe I was the first to chime in.

#EveryoneLovesMidgetDong

That's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

That's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

despicable, pathetic, disgusting.

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