question about the 1st rogers dropped INT

[Skinz4Life12]

that whole "football move" thing has been taken out of the rules this year

[ZoEd]

Carlos clearly didnt have possession of that ball. C'mon guys lets be real here. He catches it but never secures it and makes a football move. He was falling backwards due to his momentum (not a football move) so he would've had to contain the ball throughout the entire process of the catch. The ball was moving when his elbow hit the ground, that's why it popped out. No catch! No Hands... Rogers no big contract next year.. lol $$

Unfortunately your arguement is baseless since the "football move" rule doesn't exist anymore and hasn't since 2007. According to the rules "A completed catch is now when a receiver gets two feet down and has control of the ball. Previously, a receiver had to make "a football move" in addition to having control of the ball for a reception". http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/forwardpass

You can argue that because Rogers' feet didn't touch the ground, his ass did, that it wasn't a completion. However, this doesn't negate the fact that the "football move" rule no longer exists.

[HBnotBlades]

The call was correct and it's the same rule that took away a game winning touchdown from Calvin Johnson and the Lions earlier this year.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/12/lions-lose-as-apparent-calvin-johnson-game-winner-is-incomplete/

The rule in question states, "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 after he touches 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."

Rogers was going to the ground while catching the ball, therefore, he has to maintain control after hitting the ground. He didn't.

In regards to the OP, his shoulder was touched by the receiver on the way down, I rewinded and checked in slow motion on my DVR. So if it was somehow a completed pass, he would have been down by contact.

[Larry Brown #43]

not sure what you mean, but i've always understand that rule means that when you hit the ground- meaning your butt or elbow or knee, even if the ball doesnt, you are down even if the ball pops out.

Yep, you're correct about this (assuming the person with the ball is down by contact).

I always cringe when I hear people say "the ground can't cause a fumble," because it's really untrue. If you're down by contact, then true, the ground can't cause a fumble. But the ground can cause a fumble all day long if a player is untouched. People say "the ground can't cause a fumble" so often that they think it's true, when in fact it's an untrue statement in and of itself. It's the "down BY CONTACT" that prevents a fumble from being a fumble. So it's the contact combined with the ground, not the ground itself, that prevents the fumble.

So the next time you hear someone say "the ground can't cause a fumble, tell him that he's wrong.

But as for this particular play-- that's interesting that Rogers was touched on the way to the ground. I hadn't noticed that last night. But yeah, that would have changed things if the refs had ruled that he had possession. I wonder if the refs would have picked up on that. I guess we'll never know.

[Phixius]

this is what killed me... Kareem was hit right in the chest... Rogers was back peddling and had to make a hell of a play just to be in position to make that catch. Either way, we couldn't give Peyton second chances.

True but Kareem didn't see the ball until the last second and tried to react to it but failed.

[terryb101]

What?

carlos cant catch the ball because he has no hands,,, just like landry cant make most of his tackles because he has no arms to wrap around the ball carrier...he goes for the espn highlite hits tooo much,,and carlos is just pathic

[Dan T.]

like landry cant make most of his tackles because he has no arms to wrap around the ball carrier...he goes for the espn highlite hits tooo much,,and carlos is just pathic

Have you watched any games so far this season?

[terryb101]

Yep, you're correct about this (assuming the person with the ball is down by contact).

I always cringe when I hear people say "the ground can't cause a fumble," because it's really untrue. If you're down by contact, then true, the ground can't cause a fumble. But the ground can cause a fumble all day long if a player is untouched. People say "the ground can't cause a fumble" so often that they think it's true, when in fact it's an untrue statement in and of itself. It's the "down BY CONTACT" that prevents a fumble from being a fumble. So it's the contact combined with the ground, not the ground itself, that prevents the fumble.

So the next time you hear someone say "the ground can't cause a fumble, tell him that he's wrong. ..yep. you are so right,,only in college does that rule apply

But as for this particular play-- that's interesting that Rogers was touched on the way to the ground. I hadn't noticed that last night. But yeah, that would have changed things if the refs had ruled that he had possession. I wonder if the refs would have picked up on that. I guess we'll never know.

you are correct, only in college does that rule apply

[PeterMP]

I just want to point out that the ground can cause a fumble.

If nobody touches you and you fall forward on the ball and it comes out, it is a fumble.

[terryb101]

Have you watched any games so far this season?

pretty much all of them since 1969, and yourself??? these guys are a bunch of overpaid "i dont wanna get hurt, hope he goes down when i hit him"wussies the art of catching and tackling has long since evaporated from football..everynow and then you'll see some great catches, or a player who makes tackling look good, but this crap of just trying to knock someone down is horrible..you gotta wrap up.. and i did see landry get run over on that touchdown run. why did he get run over? cause he has no arms...

[CurseReversed]

that was a completed catch, I thought it was obvious on the replay. I was fine with the call because i did not see anyone touch him on the way down and was worried it would be colts ball on a recovered fumble. Now after knowing that he was touched, the bottom line is no longer rogers dropping the pick, although that is tragic..... The bottom line is it should have been challenged and overturned, with us getting the interception.

Damn...again...

[grego]

The bottom line is it should have been challenged and overturned, with us getting the interception.

Damn...again...

actually, the colts did challenge it, thinking it was on INT and fumble, giving them a big chunk of yards and good field position. the refs ruled that rogers didnt make the catch though.

would have been really funny if the refs ruled a catch and non fumble. talk about a backfire..

i just cant believe the announcers didnt talk about how, if it was a catch like alot of us thought it could have been, it would have been skins ball, since rogers was touched on the way down. not a word by collinsworth and michaels.

[Larry Brown #43]

I just want to point out that the ground can cause a fumble.

If nobody touches you and you fall forward on the ball and it comes out, it is a fumble.

Yep...that was my point in post #29 above.

[HoustonSkin]

Rogers never had possession, as defined by the NFL when receiving a forward pass. Simple as that. The same rule applies everywhere (sidelines, endzone, middle of the field). You have to maintain control all the way to the ground, basically until you stop moving (sliding, rolling, etc.).

[Veretax]

See I like to think the ref was rolling his eyes and laughing while watching this play, knowing 'los's reputation for dropping sure INTs LOL I hope I'm wrong on that, but I chuckled that the Colts challenged that sucker.

[Larry Brown #43]

Rogers never had possession, as defined by the NFL when receiving a forward pass. Simple as that. The same rule applies everywhere (sidelines, endzone, middle of the field). You have to maintain control all the way to the ground, basically until you stop moving (sliding, rolling, etc.).

I think everyone (or at least most of us) understands that. The question though is if Carlos actually HAD maintained possession and the Colts were correct that he caught the ball...we should have gotten possession, because Carlos was touched by a Colts player on the way to the ground. Which means he would have been down by contact.

But it's all moot anyway since it technically was not a catch. People have raised the point because no one on the broadcast noted that Carlos may have been down by contact-- people were only thinking in terms of incomplete pass or fumble. Fumble shouldn't have even been an option since he was touched.

[jivelikenice]

I feel terrible for Carlos because he actually caught that one and the contact with the ground jarred the ball loose. The one that is really ticking me off is the Kareem Moore one. The game was 7-7 and that was a soft pass that hit him right in the numbers. He had space in front of him and could have brought that back well into Colts territory and who knows, it could have been an entirely different ball game. Instead the Colts drive down and score the same possession.

[HoustonSkin]

I think everyone (or at least most of us) understands that. The question though is if Carlos actually HAD maintained possession and the Colts were correct that he caught the ball...we should have gotten possession, because Carlos was touched by a Colts player on the way to the ground. Which means he would have been down by contact.

But it's all moot anyway since it technically was not a catch. People have raised the point because no one on the broadcast noted that Carlos may have been down by contact-- people were only thinking in terms of incomplete pass or fumble. Fumble shouldn't have even been an option since he was touched.

Gotcha - It's just that there are way too many people that still don't understand this rule.

[SoCalSkinsFan1975]

If he does what every other db in the NFL seems to be able to do and hold on to the ball it is all a mute point and we win the game. I saw 4 dropped INT's, if we make half of those we win. I am very proud of how we played and I am optimistic about the future, but when you see their db make a one handed INT while flying through the air, I get a little frustrated that our db's could not bring in much simpler catches.

[Bobbyst21]

[ATTACH]44741[/ATTACH]

I found a pic of Carlos's dad.Now we all know where he got his hands from.:doh:

[skins2victory]

actually, the colts did challenge it, thinking it was on INT and fumble, giving them a big chunk of yards and good field position. the refs ruled that rogers didnt make the catch though.

would have been really funny if the refs ruled a catch and non fumble. talk about a backfire..

i just cant believe the announcers didnt talk about how, if it was a catch like alot of us thought it could have been, it would have been skins ball, since rogers was touched on the way down. not a word by collinsworth and michaels.

Exactly, should have been our ball. Not the first time these kind of calls dont go our way. Guess it could hve been worse, they could have ruled a catch, fumble, Colts ball.

[Old Dominion Monarch 06]

because he has no hands|||| just like landry has no arms, thats why he misses and most of his tackles

LaRon is leading the league in tackles with SIXTY-THREE. how about you actually watch our games?

[theivorhick]

I think the refs blew this call, as well. Los had the int, had possession, was touched, and hit the ground with his elbow when the ball came out. By definition, that should have been a dead ball after the pick. The ground can't cause a fumble and Los was touched before going down. Should have been Skins ball from the spot. Plain and simple...