Why wasn't that a reception?

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by redman

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.

The other thing I've noticed Redman is that prior to the two minute warning, if a coach throws the challenge flag, they specifically have to state 'WHAT' they are challenging. Then it is that aspect, and generally that aspect only that is reviewed. When its a mandatory official challenge in the last two minutes, they seem to take the attitude that they have carte-blanche permission to assess any aspect of the play they want. I think it would be preferable if instant replay were allowed at any point in the game, all the way up to the point that time expires. I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for turning it all over to the official's discretion in the last 2 minutes?

[redman]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for turning it all over to the official's discretion in the last 2 minutes?

I know generally why it is. The league wants to ensure that the plays during "crunch time" in the final two minutes with (in all likelihood) the most ability to directly influence the outcome of a game are in fact reviewed, regardless of how many challenges the teams have left. This part makes sense to me; the carte-blanche aspect of it does not.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

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.

Are you sure about that? They said since the catch was near the sideline he was lunging for the first down marker that is why that rule was upheld.

[Art]

Jbooma,

Yes, I'm completely certain.

Again, had Coles caught the ball in the middle of the field and run 25 steps to the sideline, then dove out of bounds on the sideline to get the first, dropping the ball as he goes out, it's not an incompletion. The rule is SOLELY meant to cover tightrope catches on the sideline where a player has only two feet down, then hits the ground. Once a player takes a third step in bounds with the ball, the rule doesn't apply. Once the third step is taken, control is established in bounds, and the player already made a football move. The rule doesn't apply in those situations.

[AzSkinsFan63]

I'm not sure how a guy takes 4 steps with the ball firmly in his hands and even has the presence of mind to stick it out to get more yards as he goes out of bounds isn't a catch...and Simms is an idiot...

Refs still suck for the skins..Spurrier needs to run up scores to make sure these idiots don't screw us!!!!