Why wasn't that a reception?

[SkinsfanNJ0326]

I wholeheatedly agree with all of you .. IT WAS A CATCH. He clearly caught the ball and he did pull it in, than reached out for the first down and the ground can not cause a FUMBLE. I would love to see what the ESPN has to say. If there are any articles in the papers tomorrow would someone please post them or the links to them.. THANX

GO SKINS GO SKINS .. Hail to the redskins.

[SkinsfanNJ0326]

dont know why i did that twice WOOPS .. Sorry

[CBMGreatOne]

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 half, Carter fired a TD pass to Bryant and he got two feet down, had clear possession and fell out of bounds. When he hit the ground, the ball moved out of his grasp, but didn't leave his hands. Even so, the play was called incomplete on the field. Fortunately for Dallas, Bernie Kukar had half a brain and overturned the ruling.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

CBM,

Bryant actually never lost posession of that pass. He held onto it when he went to the ground unlike Coles and Chrebet.

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with the "rule". I think it is dumb. Cherebet clearly had two feet in bounds when he caught the ball. And I feel this rule also contradicts the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule. I don't like it nor do I agree with it. But this is how they are calling this play. I think it is dumb because Coles and Chrebet both caught their passes.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

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.

Good. Next time you see him, please remind him that he is an old goat that needs to retire. He probably drives on the road like he officiates on the field, erratic and reckless.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

Oakton,

It derived from the NFC Championship game when the Bucs played the Rams. It was Bert Emanuel who made that catch but it was called incomplete because he dropped it when he hit the ground. Or it was something like that. I don't remember exactly.

[CBMGreatOne]

Tom, your response does nothing to vindicate your initial point. You fail to note that what happened on the two plays was not similar in any way. Chrebet's play actually wasn't a catch, as he had not established possession and when he came down on the ball, he clearly lost control. That is what the rule was made for.

In real time Coles's catch looked similar, but even upon a closer look on a non-slow motion replay, you can tell he had control of the ball inbounds for at least two steps before he extended it to try for the first down. You can talk about the Bert Emmanuel rule all you want, you have to know when it is applied. In Chrebet's case it should have been applied, in Coles's case, it shouldn't have.

If that much isn't clear than you didn't look at the replay closely enough, or you just didn't see the same play that I did.

Coles's play was similar to Bryant's in that both players got feet down inbounds, demonstrated control and in Coles's case, he actually made a football move with the ball. By the way, Bryant's ball didn't come out, but it did come loose.

That's why Coles's play was much more similar to Bryant's than Chrebet's, you can think differently if you want, but you're just dead wrong. Sorry.

It is silly that I even have to explain the difference between the two, you seem smart enough to be able to figure this out on your own.

Edit: by the way, Bert Emmanuel made the catch, and the ball hit the ground as he was laying out for it. He kept control of it the entire time however, but with the old rule, if the ball hit the ground as you were coming down with it is was considered an incomplete pass no matter what.

The Bert Emmanuel rule applies to situations where the receiver is going down as he makes the catch, allowing for the ball to touch the ground as long as control is maintained before and after the ball to ground contact occurs.

It was implemented to ease the standards of what is considered a legal catch. In Coles's case it actually stiffened the standards, not because it should have, but because it was incorrectly applied.

If a receiver catches a ball, takes three steps, and dives forward, when the ball hits the ground and comes out, it doesn't matter if you are inbounds or out of bounds, possession has already been established because he A: had control of the football, B: had both feet inbounds, and C: made a football move with the ball.

Coles satisfied all three of these requirements, thus the Emmanuel rule's application was an absolute misinterpretation of reality by the official.

I've explained myself very clearly now, as well as before in this thread, do you now understand?

I'm sorry if I'm getting testy, but there is absolutely ZERO chance that I am wrong here. It is so far from a consideration in my mind that I refuse to allow anyone to even believe otherwise of their own accord without correcting them. I was so pissed off about the call today that I couldn't even see.

I'm not saying I'm right about the fact that it SHOULD have been a catch and the rule is bogus. I'm saying that by the rules set forth by the NFL competition committee, or whatever they are called, as explained to the viewing audience in many of the hundred or so games I've watched since the 99 NFC championship game, it WAS a catch. I understand the reason the rule was created and I understand when it is to be applied. You clearly do not, but don't feel bad, neither does Tom White.

[Phat Hog]

All I know is that Coles clearly had possession of the ball; 3 steps and a short drag of his left foot; and extended the ball as to get past the first down. What the hell good is review if refs are going to make up the rules as they go? If he was in bounds, it would have been a ground induced fumble, we would have gotten he first down and retained possession.

Idiots!

[CBMGreatOne]

Right there with you Phat Hog, the refs have to know the rules, and in this case, they clearly didn't. Remember last week after the McCants taunting when the ref said it was 1st and 25. It was a good thing another official was there to tell him he was wrong. We didn't have that luxury this week.

Absolute Friggin Morons. :doh:

[Ancalagon the Black]

CBM, I would have to agree with your analysis completely.

On a tangent, I don't think that the rule, no matter how dumb, contradicts the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule. The latter rule states that if someone has possession of a ball and loses it upon contact with the ground, then it's a dead ball, and if he doesn't have possession, it is incomplete. It says nothing about how possession is *established*, which is the point of this rule.

[nelms]

CBM - awesome explanation!!

Btw folks, on the Redskins postgame show, Gary Clark and Don Warren shared our sentiments. Warren actually said it was worst call that he has seen in a long time.

[Chief skin]

I think we got screwed, Coles caught the ball and went out of bounds. It is that simple period

[gbear]

I just keep thinking about all the times our WRs fumbled last season after the catch. If we could have had this joker, our WRs would have looked much better.

I see how it is though. IF the other guys get the ball it's a fumble. If it won't benefit the other team it's an incomplete pass?

[Shotgunner]

I'm with you guys that was the worst call ever.

I thought the rules indicate that the ground cannot cause a fumble. He clearly had possesion of it with two feet down and reached out making a first down, he then was out of bounds the play should have been over.

After the win i was watching the jets- cowgirls game and Chrebet had a similar play a clear catch going out of bounds and hit the ground and juggled it. there must be a new rule stating that possesion must be maintained until you hit the showers

thankfully it did not cost us a win!!

:dallasuck

[Glenn X]

I'm still so angry about that call that I can't even put it into words!

:redpunch: :redpunch: :redpunch:

[bamaskin]

bad call but shows the kind of talent we have to get a ball

thrown that good at a crtical time and a receiver that caught

it. The rule is you can't juggle it when coming down even

when you are out of bounds.

[redman]

Originally posted by Tarhog

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.

This is a great point, and it's a beef that I have about replay in general. The reviews seem to be ill-defined foray's into a play, rather than a check on a specific aspect of a play.

Putting on my lawyer hat for a second, you have to define your issues before you make your argument to the court. If you don't bring up an issue, the court won't consider it (except perhaps in extremely rare circumstances).

On this play, the call on the field was that the pass was incomplete because he was bobbling the ball as he went out of bounds, and therefore never established posession in the field of play. Replay clearly showed otherwise, as it demonstrated that Coles made a solid catch with his hands, albeit away from his body, took 2-3 steps in bounds, and then dove for the sideline. The basis for the on-field ruling clearly was not there.

It therefore makes no sense to me that the replay booth should have the option to go and find on their own a new basis (one which I continue to fail to understand) for it to be ruled incomplete. After all, the replay booth isn't used to call penalties that were missed on the field.

[Glenn X]

Bingo, redman. What the refs claimed yesterday was that there's one way -- and one way only -- to make a catch, that the receiver must bring the ball into his body for it to be considered a legal reception. Which we all know to be demonstrably untrue!

How many times have we seen receivers grab footballs out of the air and keep said footballs on their fingertips as they raced through and out of the endzone? What, are the refs saying that all those touchdown catches weren't really catches unless all those receivers pulled their footballs into their breadbaskets, even if these receivers only did this once they were out of bounds?

[Art]

CBM is correct here.

There is a rule in the NFL that says a receiver who is going out of bounds and gets two feet down must hold on to the ball as he hits the ground out of bounds. This rule is designated for sideline catches. Catches where just two feet are in and the next move is out of bounds.

The Coles play was not subject to this rule. Once he put the third foot down in bounds, the rule no longer applies. Once he established control with the third foot, thereby making a football move inbounds, the play is a catch. Think of it this way. Coles catches the ball in the middle of the field. He runs 25 steps to the sideline where he gets pushed out of bounds. Upon landing, he drops the ball. Is it a catch?

Of course.

And it's a catch the second he has a third foot down in bounds. Coles actually had four feet down, then his right foot tapped and left foot dragged. You could say he had SIX feet down because of those final two moves.

I'm willing to guarantee you the official never saw the early part of that catch. I'd be willing to bet he ONLY saw the final two steps and drop and therefore, it WAS a drop if he's applying the sideline control rule they have in place. That's the ONLY way they can make that call. Had they rewound the tape and saw he put the third foot down in bounds, they couldn't have made that call.

It was an atrocious call.

[jbooma]

Yes this is called the Chris Carter rule, he used to try and stretch the football everytime near the first down marker and drop the ball out of bounds. This is a new rule for this year and it looks like it will be reviewed. This rule doesn't happen in the endzone since the WR would have already crossed the plane.

[jbooma]

The only positive thing about this is at least they are consistent in other games, this isn't a one time only thing.

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by jbooma

The only positive thing about this is at least they are consistent in other games, this isn't a one time only thing.

What other games has this erroneous interpetation been applied to? I haven't seen it nor heard about from agrieved fans.

[Darth Tater]

Coles took at least three steps (you could say 4 or more) after he caught the ball and was obviously in control of that ball enough to extend it for a first down. To move the ball like that, you must have control.

The pass interference on Coles earlier was very legitmate and a pick, howerver, 8 or 9 times out of 10 that would not have been called. The Champ interference call was also a legitmate call but again, most of the time such things are not called (especially in the light of how dbs are allowed to beat up on Gardner).

[jbooma]

Originally posted by aREDSKIN

What other games has this erroneous interpetation been applied to? I haven't seen it nor heard about from agrieved fans.

It happened in the Jets game.

[Guest skinsmatic]

Can someone tell me why the ref has to get on the phone to the upstairs official before he makes a call? Is he being told what to call? I think that several things effected the decision and none of them had to do with the play itself. What was the line on the game? The NFL and Network wanting a exciting ending to the game. That Synder's and Spurriers are disliked/New boys on the block and Billlick is part of the established New York Circuit. And lastly parity/hope have to give every city especially one with loyal fans as New England hope that their season isn't over, don't what to lose the fan interest before the halfway point of the season. Thats what scares me the most about the philly game next week, mark my word no way the Redskins win that game. They have already placed the seeds into our minds that the Redskin have penalty problems, so next week if philly is getting dominated not necessarily in the score but if it looks like the Skins are moving the ball fairly consistent then a timely penalty will be called on the skins to slow the skins down to even out the game. So far thats the only reason that call went against the skins

And Tom Giant Fan is a giant homer of course he going to side with ex-giant Phil Simms, who works for the NFL. And not to mention the Giant have benefit from the refs already. Someone point him to a giant forum.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOU BETTER ASK SOMEBODY!