Did Aldrick Really Catch It?

[SkinsFTW]

The ball moved. Incomplete. End of story.

It doesn't matter if it moves, did it touch the ground? What inconclusive shot did they have that we didn't see? I'll watch the game again later but I couldn't tell, not sure how the refs did but the call did go well with all the other head scratchers in this game. This seems to happen everytime Hoculi refs the Redskins too.

[mi6]

It wasn't a catch.

And, while folks were raving about the throw ... I thought the ball didn't have enough zip and arch to make it easy for Aldrick to catch it. Aldrick had to wait for the ball, and that gave the defended enough time to make it more difficult for him to catch it. Also, the ball didn't lead Aldrick, which meant it was a tad under thrown.

[TheGoodBits]

It wasn't a catch.

And, while folks were raving about the throw ... I thought the ball didn't have enough zip and arch to make it easy for Aldrick to catch it. Aldrick had to wait for the ball, and that gave the defended enough time to make it more difficult for him to catch it. Also, the ball didn't lead Aldrick, which meant it was a tad under thrown.

What? That ball was perfect...

[Larry]

If this play did not occur in the end zone, it would have been considered a drop because he allowed the football to touch the ground to aid him with the catch.

It's not a catch, till the receiver comes down with it.

If a RUNNER crosses the plane with the ball in his hands, then it's a TD when the ball touches the plane. (When any part of the ball is over any part of the white line). A runner doesn't have to touch the end zone. (The ball has to be in bounds, when it crosses the plane).

But if a RECEIVER catches the ball in the air (and hasn't touched the ground yet), then the ball hasn't been caught, yet.

[emor09]

It wasn't a catch.

And, while folks were raving about the throw ... I thought the ball didn't have enough zip and arch to make it easy for Aldrick to catch it. Aldrick had to wait for the ball, and that gave the defended enough time to make it more difficult for him to catch it. Also, the ball didn't lead Aldrick, which meant it was a tad under thrown.

 

Is that a joke? It landed right in his bread basket... 

[Springfield]

It wasn't a catch.

And, while folks were raving about the throw ... I thought the ball didn't have enough zip and arch to make it easy for Aldrick to catch it. Aldrick had to wait for the ball, and that gave the defended enough time to make it more difficult for him to catch it. Also, the ball didn't lead Aldrick, which meant it was a tad under thrown.

So, let me get this straight. Griffin chucks the ball 60 yards in a perfect spiral and hits the man in stride and you are complaining that it didn't have zip, didn't have arc, didn't lead Robinson and was slightly under thrown?

I mean, really? Is this really happening right now? Is this real life?

That was one of the prettiest throws I've seen in ages. Probably the best throw by a Redskins QB in the last 20 years not named Griffin.

Yet we are nit-picking the throw. Unreal.

[coolbeans]

If this play did not occur in the end zone, it would have been considered a drop because he allowed the football to touch the ground to aid him with the catch.

 

However,  he had the ball secured in his hands,  not moving as he crossed the goal line.  The ball was still in the air at this point and it was secured.  Once you cross the goal line with the football under control,  it is supposed to be considered a touchdown,  regardless what happens afterwards in the end zone.   If he had bobbled the ball before crossing the goal line,  and then lost it the way he did, that's an incomplete pass.  That is not what happened on this play, therefore I believe we were robbed of a touchdown. 

Wrong. If the WR is going to the ground as part of the catch which he clearly was, he must maintain full possession of the ball throughout the entire play including touchdowns. Welcome to the club of teams that have been screwed by this new rule. The talley is up to 7 or 8 now. It sucks because many of the plays look like clear TDs and there has been inconsistency in the calls but to the letter of the rule, it was incomplete. Should that be a touchdown? That is up for serious debate but would require a rule change or reinterpretation of the existing rule.

[srtman04]

Wrong. If the WR is going to the ground as part of the catch which he clearly was, he must maintain full possession of the ball throughout the entire play including touchdowns. Welcome to the club of teams that have been screwed by this new rule. The talley is up to 7 or 8 now. It sucks because many of the plays look like clear TDs and there has been inconsistency in the calls but to the letter of the rule, it was incomplete. Should that be a touchdown? That is up for serious debate but would require a rule change or reinterpretation of the existing rule.

 

Is this a new rule making it's debut this year?  

It's not a catch, till the receiver comes down with it.

If a RUNNER crosses the plane with the ball in his hands, then it's a TD when the ball touches the plane. (When any part of the ball is over any part of the white line). A runner doesn't have to touch the end zone. (The ball has to be in bounds, when it crosses the plane).

But if a RECEIVER catches the ball in the air (and hasn't touched the ground yet), then the ball hasn't been caught, yet.

 

He didn't jump for the ball, both of his feet were on the ground still after making the initial catch. 

[bonesbr549]

Not a catch.  I called when i first saw it.  Said to myself that ain't going to stand and I was right.  Sadly but I was correct.  He never kept it through going to the ground. Hated it, but it was the right call.   Let's face it guys we just did not play well enough to win.  

[mitchellvii]

Ok guys, I'm a huge homer and very biased and that wasn't a catch.

[Taylor703]

So, let me get this straight. Griffin chucks the ball 60 yards in a perfect spiral and hits the man in stride and you are complaining that it didn't have zip, didn't have arc, didn't lead Robinson and was slightly under thrown?

I mean, really? Is this really happening right now? Is this real life?

That was one of the prettiest throws I've seen in ages. Probably the best throw by a Redskins QB in the last 20 years not named Griffin.

Yet we are nit-picking the throw. Unreal.

Quite mind boggling isn't it? This is a prime example for that stupid "blasphemy, RGIII" thread. The guy throws a beautiful 65-yard TD pass and hits the receiver perfectly in stride and someone claims it was a poorly thrown ball? I'm done, this is so silly anymore.

[hailyeah1]

. this could only happen to us!!!

 i  saw the replay and it looks like a catch with both knees down then his arm hits the ground and it looks like a bobble result touchdown 

no question  but there must be some silly rule  come into play here  that over rules it .which  again  it seems this stuff only could happen to us .

this reminds me soooo much of the calls that went against us in the 70's  anyone remember that st louis cardinial game fumble at the goal line they called a touchdown i believe  ,they knocked the guy upside down fumbling the ball if i'm remembering right !!!

 oh well !!! thank god this wasn't a critical call in a crucial  playoff /superbowl game or we all might be up in arms !!!

 

0-3 really stinks !!!!

[RiverboatGambler]

Quite mind boggling isn't it? This is a prime example for that stupid "blasphemy, RGIII" thread. The guy throws a beautiful 65-yard TD pass and hits the receiver perfectly in stride and someone claims it was a poorly thrown ball? I'm done, this is so silly anymore.

You will notice it is the same people who are coming out of the woodwork attacking his character and calling for kirk that aren't talking about all the 3rd down conversions we had today or the big gainers in the air and the fact that he broke off a 30 yard run for the first time this season. Their agenda is clear.

[purbeast]

Some of you are delusional.  The ball clearly slid on the ground and it was obvious from that one angle of the replay.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Is this a new rule making it's debut this year?  

 

He didn't jump for the ball, both of his feet were on the ground still after making the initial catch. 

You have to maintain control of the ball through the fall to the ground.

This isn't a new rule and was most notable when Calvin Johnson caught a ball in the endzone against the Bears a few years ago then as he was getting up to celebrate let go of the ball and they said he didn't maintain possession.

If Robinson is going to fall into the endzone he has to keep the ball secure and not let it touch the ground through the fall/impact

It wasn't a catch.And, while folks were raving about the throw ... I thought the ball didn't have enough zip and arch to make it easy for Aldrick to catch it. Aldrick had to wait for the ball, and that gave the defended enough time to make it more difficult for him to catch it. Also, the ball didn't lead Aldrick, which meant it was a tad under thrown.

You cannot ask for a better pass. It hit him in stride away from the defender right in the middle of his chest. He has to catch that pass period

[skinny21]

I thought the ball clearly moved on replay but doesn't it also have to touch the ground for it to be incomplete? Maybe I was too deflated to notice but I'm not sure there was conclusive evidence to show that the ball touched the ground. Still my first reaction after the replay was that's an incompletion.

My exact thoughts. Whichever way it was called in the field should have stood IMO.

[hailyeah1]

You will notice it is the same people who are coming out of the woodwork attacking his character and calling for kirk that aren't talking about all the 3rd down conversions we had today or the big gainers in the air and the fact that he broke off a 30 yard run for the first time this season. Their agenda is clear.

yeah Griffin is back to form  it seems from what highlights i have seen ,  2 key plays were the touchdown/nontouchdown by robinson and the nonfumble /fumble by Griffin .

that was the ballgame in a nutshell, bad breaks !!!!

but i'm with ya the boo birders  are trying  to  poop the party!!!

[hail2skins]

 

This isn't a new rule and was most notable when Calvin Johnson caught a ball in the endzone against the Bears a few years ago then as he was getting up to celebrate let go of the ball and they said he didn't maintain possession.

Exactly......if anyone knew to challenge on the Robinson, it would be Schwartz, especially after the abovementioned Megatron play.

[hailyeah1]

Hard to believe  that  most of the posts on the robinsons touchdown/nontouchdown  

where is the the fight in us ,the us against the world attitude ,years past we would call out the refs on any  penalty /call against us .

We are 0-3 and should be fighting mad  and fuming ,where is that we want dallas!!!! we want dallas !!!!atitude .

have we gotten so cerebral;that we have for gotten how to be rabid fans!! jmo!!!

[techboy]

Exactly......if anyone knew to challenge on the Robinson, it would be Schwartz, especially after the abovementioned Megatron play.

And if anyone knew NOT to challenge, it would be Schwartz, especially after the Thanksgiving debacle last year.

[Badgerrocks]

If this play did not occur in the end zone, it would have been considered a drop because he allowed the football to touch the ground to aid him with the catch.

 

However,  he had the ball secured in his hands,  not moving as he crossed the goal line.  The ball was still in the air at this point and it was secured.  Once you cross the goal line with the football under control,  it is supposed to be considered a touchdown,  regardless what happens afterwards in the end zone.   If he had bobbled the ball before crossing the goal line,  and then lost it the way he did, that's an incomplete pass.  That is not what happened on this play, therefore I believe we were robbed of a touchdown. 

 

This is exactly what I thought too. What is the truth of this?

[Bacon]

Sucks that we let that one slip away, but the fact that RG3 put the ball there in the first place speaks volumes. It's a great consolation prize, if nothing else. Honestly, at this point, I'm largely tuning in to watch the development of our franchise QB. The defense holding an opponent to 400 yards or a receiver catching a routine ball or only being penalized 5 times in one game would just be icing on the cake. 

[Harwich Hog]

I was clinging to the hope that there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn it. My gut-feeling though is that it was incomplete. It didn't look like a catch.

 

I won't bemoan this as a reason we lost. Good teams would have come back out, converted for a first down on the following play and came away with some points instead of just an excuse at the end of the game.

[BnG4ever326]

If this play did not occur in the end zone, it would have been considered a drop because he allowed the football to touch the ground to aid him with the catch.

 

However,  he had the ball secured in his hands,  not moving as he crossed the goal line.  The ball was still in the air at this point and it was secured.  Once you cross the goal line with the football under control,  it is supposed to be considered a touchdown,  regardless what happens afterwards in the end zone.   If he had bobbled the ball before crossing the goal line,  and then lost it the way he did, that's an incomplete pass.  That is not what happened on this play, therefore I believe we were robbed of a touchdown. 

That is EXACTLY my point! He caught the ball at the 2 yard line. Therefore, at that point, he was a RUNNER. Most often, when a runner breaks the plane of the goal line with the ball in his possession, that would be a TD.  If he attempted to catch the ball while ALREADY in the end zone then I can probably see the reversal. The exact same thing happened to Calvin Johnson vs the Bears last week.  He caught the ball at the two, dove into the endzone and the ball hit the ground. Originally they ruled TD but was overturned by that "complete the catch" rule. 

[MartinC]

 Exactly......if anyone knew to challenge on the Robinson, it would be Schwartz, especially after the abovementioned Megatron play.

 

No one had to challenge, every scoring play is reviewed.

 

It was incomplete - you have to maintain clear possession to the ground. The ball was moving as Robinson hit the ground and part of the ball clearly touched the ground. I knew it was coming back after the first replay before it went for review.

 

Thats a catch Robinson HAS to complete. He has to make that play.