Ignatius J. Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 redman, I only have tapes of skins games, but I'll go through them this year again to see if I can find that catch I'm thinking of. I remember it being another team though, so I probably don't have it on tape. As for looking for a rule, I am not aware of any way to get a copy of the standards for making calls in this game. For a less explicit example, do you remember the rams game last year? We hit one of thier recievers AFTER he had taken two steps and he dropped the ball. It was ruled incomplete then as well. The point is two steps in bounds is neccesary to establish that you were in bounds, but two steps does NOT indicate posession in the NFL. It goes by a far more complex set of rules. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 DB, you say that two steps doesn't equal possession but I will give you the rule as I understand it, and as it has been explained to me several times through countless football games. Possession is determined by three things, complete control of the football (Coles had it), both feet inbounds (Coles had that and then some), and a football move with the ball (stretching it toward the marker qualifies in this area, does it not?) Nothing in the rulebook justified that call. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_good_brotha Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one pissed about that call. It's amazing the refs tried to cheat and the Redskins still won the game. Hail to the Redskins! Brotha aka Bro Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyGator Why is the rule named after Bert Emmanuel? What did Bert do to deserve this? To me applying that rule in this sense is the same as saying the ground can cause a fumble. BTW, I know where Ref Tom White lives. He's an acquaintance. I'm assuming it comes from: NFC Championship Game. Tampa Bay vs. St. Louis. Emmanuel catches a pass to keep a late, potentially game-winning drive alive only to have it called incomplete. He clearly had possession as the ball hit the ground. Very controversial call. Thus ... the Bert Emmanuel rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 The really F-ed up thing about it is that had he caught it another 5 yards inbounds, and fumbled it out of bounds, it would have been a catch/fumble and we'd have got the ball at the spot it went out of bounds. How can you say with him having indisputable possession as he goes out of bounds that its NOT a RECEPTION, whether he loses it as he hits the ground or not? Its insane. The other interesting point was that the review was supposedly undertaken (and subsequently upheld) to see if he 'bobbled the ball'. There wasn't a single instant-replay angle that didn't show 2 hands solidly on the ball until he was on the ground, out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxito Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I was there I saw the whole thing and I thought that he caught the ball. But I guess he didn't have possession of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Well, they had a similar one in the jets game. Initially it was a jets first down and a catch. Parcells threw the red flag for a review. Upon further review..... they overturned it, with the ref actually expalining the reciever had two feet in, initially caught the ball, and had the ground knock it loose momentarily upon hitting the ground, resulting in an incomplete pass. Killed a jets 1st down resulting in a punt to Dallas. so apparently the ground CAN cause a fumble or inomplete pass. So when someone runs ten or twenty steps and loses the ball out of their hands due to lack of concentration (i.e. without any contact) I guess it will be an incomplete pass instead of a fumble..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyG3 Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Originally posted by Tarhog The really F-ed up thing about it is that had he caught it another 5 yards inbounds, and fumbled it out of bounds, it would have been a catch/fumble and we'd have got the ball at the spot it went out of bounds. It wouldn't have been a fumble, it would have been a catch and a dead ball when it came out because the ground can not cause a fumble. I think the reason the call was blown was this: The rule for catching the ball is the receiver must retain posession and be able to make another football move. So when a receiver makes a diving catch, but the ball comes out when he hits the ground, it is incomplete. He has to retain posession throughout the action of catching the football. The ref must have been thinking about this and ignored the fact that Coles took 3 steps, and then stretched for the marker (another football move). The only other reasoning I can think of is that since Coles did not bring the ball into his body, he never RETAINED full posession. Either way it's BS, it's a blown call, and we deserve an apology. Bad calls happen, and at least this one didn't cost us the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Maxito, you didn't have the benefit of a clear look at replay. Probably saved you a headache, no two ways about this call. Ok, clearly I'm just too mad, and I should step away from the computer, but that was the worst call I've seen in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Consigliere Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Couldn't see the game in a sports bar today (I'm in Cali), and finally got to see the Coles catch on ESPN. That was an absolute travesty. Cleary a reception, but the ball-less wonders on ESPN excused the b.s. chicken sh!t call. Morons. Clearly a catch, and yes I'm pissed, we could have easily lost this game for a variety of reasons, but the biggest one is that call there. That call gave the Patriots an "in" to possibly winning it that was complete and utter shysty bullshack. I hate this cr@p, it's bad enough that we're getting penalized by the dozen and our idiot lineman don't know how to go one series without committing a false start, but when the refs invent bullsh!t calls to screw us that's a bit much. What a joke. I can't wait to see what nonsense they give to New York, in New York later this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 28, 2003 Author Share Posted September 28, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyGator BTW, I know where Ref Tom White lives. He's an acquaintance. Would you mind sharing his address with the rest of the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long n Left Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 The incomplete call was certainly ludicrous, but let's not forget two other calls that were ridiculous as well. The offensive interference call against Coles was a joke. Not only was that incidental contact, but on the replay from behind Ramsey it is clear that the contact between Coles and the defender is long over before Ramsey even throws the ball. It was in no way a pick play, and had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the play's outcome. The second horrible call was the interference against Champ. The receiver was actually holding off Champ with his inside hand. I thought the call was going to go against the Pats, but alas, I remain convinced that a conspiracy exists against the Skins since Tagliabue has taken office. Three horrendous calls. I hope Spurrier has the replay packaged and ready to send to NYC when the PO opens tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 The same thing happened in the Jets/Cowboys game and the same result occurred. I saw the Redskins play and according to the rule, it was incomplete. It happened the same way in the Jets game and they called it incomplete as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Originally posted by Tom [Giants fan] The same thing happened in the Jets/Cowboys game and the same result occurred. I saw the Redskins play and according to the rule, it was incomplete. It happened the same way in the Jets game and they called it incomplete as well. Quote the rule please. Quote the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 Originally posted by Long n Left The incomplete call was certainly ludicrous, but let's not forget two other calls that were ridiculous as well. The offensive interference call against Coles was a joke. Not only was that incidental contact, but on the replay from behind Ramsey it is clear that the contact between Coles and the defender is long over before Ramsey even throws the ball. It was in no way a pick play, and had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the play's outcome. The second horrible call was the interference against Champ. The receiver was actually holding off Champ with his inside hand. I thought the call was going to go against the Pats, but alas, I remain convinced that a conspiracy exists against the Skins since Tagliabue has taken office. Three horrendous calls. I hope Spurrier has the replay packaged and ready to send to NYC when the PO opens tomorrow. That Coles call was absolutely ridiculous. And Phil Simms opens his piehole and says it was a pick. He's either biased against the Redskins or stupid. Probably both. I somewhat disagree with the call on Champ. I thought it should have been a no-call. They both had there hands on each other, but it wasn't blatant on either side. The refs can't seem to let the players play. The game has become so over-officiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Those plays were not remotely similar. Coles already had possession when he was in bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Originally posted by Tom [Giants fan] The same thing happened in the Jets/Cowboys game and the same result occurred. I saw the Redskins play and according to the rule, it was incomplete. It happened the same way in the Jets game and they called it incomplete as well. If I'm interpreting all this talk of a "new rule" going around correctly, then it applies like this: when a receiver comes down with a ball with two feet in bounds, then falls out of bounds and loses the ball by contact with the ground, then it is an incompletion. If the rule says, instead, that when a person receives a ball, gets four feet inbounds, stretches the ball out for a first bound, then goes out of bounds and loses possession of the ball, then it's an incompletion...then the call was legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Consigliere Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 The call was crap period. Any idiot who actually doesn't think that was a catch needs his head examined, and if the rule books allow for that to be called a non-catch (and I haven't seen any proof/or quote from rules that states anything to that effect) then the rule book itself, or the addendum was written by a short busser with zero understanding of football. Player catches ball with arms outstretched near sidelines, one food steps in bounds twice, the other once, then the player goes down out of bounds, the ball popping loose upon contact with the ground. How can any receiver hold onto the ball for three steps without bobbling it, and then be judged as not having had the ball under his control and possession. It's like these refs played chess their whole lives, and have never seen or played football, it was complete and utter, cr@p, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RySkins Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Once again, several horrible calls go against us. That Coles call was ridiculous, and the Bailey interference call was even worse. On our side, the personal foul on Gash (?) against Trotter was a bad call too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBlue Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Tom, I agree with most of your posts but MUST disagree here. The two plays were distinguishable in two very signifiacant ways. First, and most importantly, Coles caught the ball and than has a minum of THREE FEET in bounds before going out of bouunds while maintaining possession. The rule that has been cited here CLEARLY does not apply to a receiver who is able to have three feet down with possession before going out of bounds. Secondly, Coles actually turned upfield in an effort to make a first down and stretched the ball out accordingly which, as I understand it, is plainly the "football move" as defined by the league. Either one of these factors independently should ensure that the play is ruled a catch. Unfortuately, Elmer Fudd the Ref was either unable or unwilling to interpret the call correctly, even after reviewing for what seemed like an eternity. btw, Conway's "almost catch" was ruled correctly by the refs as neither of the above listed factors can be said about that play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 My understanding is you must have two feet in bounds, with control of the ball, and make at least one football movement while controlling the ball. Once Cole's took the third step in bounds it was a reception. I have noticed when refs blow a call and refuse to change the call off replay, they will not explain why when they announce the ruling.:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Sorry Tom, you couldn't be MORE wrong. Chrebet's catch (I assume that's the one you are talking about) was as clear a situation to apply the Bert Emmanuel rule as there is. The circumstances were as such that he could not establish possession with two feet inbounds prior to the ball hitting the ground. When a player has already been running and making a football move with the ball, he has already established possession. Whether he then loses control after going out of bounds and having the ball strike the ground is entirely irrelevant. You're dead wrong there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 Originally posted by RySkins On our side, the personal foul on Gash (?) against Trotter was a bad call too. The call was on Larry Centers and it was an appropriate call. Actually, there were two infractions on that play. The refs didn't "explain" the personal foul call, so I don't know if they called two infractions or one. The first infraction that I saw was a helmet-to-helmet hit. The second infraction, and the one that doofus Simms explained, was hitting an indefensible player when a play is over (even if the whistle hasn't been blown yet). This is a new rule that the NFL institutued to protect players that are gathered around a pile and are essentially defenseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsfanNJ0326 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 After reading all your posts.. I AGREE>>> It was a catch... And finally i got to watch the skins play a team that did not have the new york label.. I love CBS for putting the game on... the way i saw it, he caught the ball.. Pulled it in, stretched out and the ground CAN NOT CAUSE A FU#@ing Fumble..... So i would love to hear what espn and any other sports networks have to say.. if anyone reads something in the papers tomorrow. would you please post it... thank you ... GO SKINS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Come to think of it Tom, there was a play in the Jets game similar to the Coles play. At the end of the first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.