Harwich Hog Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 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. It's the same reason why a player catching a ball and then having it dislodged is classed as an incompletion and not a fumble. There's a point past which a play becomes a reception and Robinson hadn't passed that point when he crossed the goal line. It means Aldrick needed to maintain possession beyond impacting the ground and he couldn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Ok so the question is, how many yards outside of the endzone, does a WR need to have possession, before a TD can be ruled when crossing the plane. If someone says when he makes a football move, I am going to rip the lid off my laptop. OK? 10 yards out, ok; 20 to be safe? Can he not drop the ball ever until the ref signals touchdown? Is it steps, 3 steps, 10 steps; completely irrelevant, if he trips and falls celebrating and the ball wiggles - its incomplete. To me, it seems amount of time holding the ball could be relevant. As for all those "incompletions" when a WR catches the ball takes a few steps and fumbles, I miss the days when it was a fumble. The games could use more turnovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 at first replay look, i thought it was loose, but when they kept showing it, he did appear to have his one hand under it the entire time. i kept hearing everyone (ad hocule) on TV saying the ball 'rolled'- it never did roll. i was kind of surprised they overturned it, because her certainly did have his hand under it. shame. I think it was borderline. I can see why everyone thinks it hit the ground, but I think it could've gone either way. It was inconclusive, IMO, that it actually touched the ground. It was definitely moving around, but the perspective that made it look like it touched was from a high angle which screws with the perspective. And then I thought he rolled over and secured it. And since the play was called a TD, I would've let it stand. They angle from the goal line facing the play wasn't even that great. The refs obviously thought it was conclusive though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sontupelo Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 If you go with the undisputed evidence rule of thumb, it should not have been overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matugi Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 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 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 Agreed on all of this. It was a beautiful pass, one of the best I've seen RG3 throw as a Redskin, and Robinson HAS to make that catch; he's a one-trick pony and if he can't successfully complete his half of the play then what purpose does he serve? We had the same problem in the Rams game last year: 60 some yard pass that RG3 lofted perfectly to Robinson in the fourth quarter that would have put us at the two yard line. It bounced right off his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolbeans Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 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. No, it's not a new rule for this year. It's been several years now since they said a WR must maintain possession throughout the entire process if he goes to the ground as part of the catch before making a clear football move after catching the ball. It's just that last year and now this year there have been 4-5 plays where the rule has come into play on a TD catch where it looks like a clear TD because the WR clearly crosses the goal line with possession. Everyone always thought that was a clear TD but according to the newer rule, there is no possession unless he maintains possession after going to the ground. It seems fans just aren't aware of it until it happens to their team and a TD is taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesburgvaskinsfan Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I agree. AR should have secured it better but he had the ball in his hand securely as he crossed the endzone. RBs get that call all the time. Just sayin... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 a high angle which screws with the perspective Thanks for pointing that out, Justice. That was the worst possible angle to use to overturn it. I would swear that camera angle is rarely considered by replay officials. Its all about 2D what they see on their screens. Somehow, the league rarely has a proper camera angle. For instance, it seems they rarely have a goal line camera. Its always a little bit off dead center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy614 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I think it was a good call. The ball touched the ground. Quite being a homer and call it like it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I think it was borderline. I can see why everyone thinks it hit the ground, but I think it could've gone either way. It was inconclusive, IMO, that it actually touched the ground. It was definitely moving around, but the perspective that made it look like it touched was from a high angle which screws with the perspective. And then I thought he rolled over and secured it. And since the play was called a TD, I would've let it stand. They angle from the goal line facing the play wasn't even that great. The refs obviously thought it was conclusive though. I agree. The replay certainly showed ball movement but was not in any way conclusive evidence. Had it been ruled incomplete on the field I wouldn't complain at all, but it was called a TD. I was stunned when it was overruled. We probably would have lost anyway, but a touchdown there would have at least been a confidence booster. As soon as it was called back I knew that drive was over. Any time something bad happens to the Redskins, they always find a way to make things worse. Whether it's a missed field goal, fumble, drop, botched snap, or allowing a touchdown on defense. Pouring salt on our wounds is what we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 @Andy Was it conclusive to the point that you could see that his hand was not underneath it? Did you see a ground level camera to confirm it hit the ground, or are you assuming that it probably did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I think it was a good call. The ball touched the ground. Quite being a homer and call it like it is. The ball can touch the ground and still be a completion. And when it is ruled a completion on the field, the evidence that it wasn't has to be conclusive. It wasn't close to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Ok so the question is, how many yards outside of the endzone, does a WR need to have possession, before a TD can be ruled when crossing the plane. If someone says when he makes a football move, I am going to rip the lid off my laptop. OK? 10 yards out, ok; 20 to be safe? Can he not drop the ball ever until the ref signals touchdown? Is it steps, 3 steps, 10 steps; completely irrelevant, if he trips and falls celebrating and the ball wiggles - its incomplete. To me, it seems amount of time holding the ball could be relevant. As for all those "incompletions" when a WR catches the ball takes a few steps and fumbles, I miss the days when it was a fumble. The games could use more turnovers. It does not matter how far out of the endzone the receiver is when he first catches the ball its where he completes the catch that matters. If he completes the catch - i.e lands or gets his feet down - in the end zone he has to maintain control after he hits the ground or its no catch. If a receiver catches the ball outside the endzone and gets two feet down with possesion before he crosses the plane its a TD at the point he crosses the plane no matter what happens after that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Ed Hoculi. Go back and look at our record where Ed Hoculi is the ref. I think it's 1 win in the last three years or something like that. He is a terrible ref. He and his crew lack consistency like I have never seen. I agree that it probably wasn't a catch, but if you don't have conclussive video evidence, you cannot overturn that call. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmd24 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 For those asking, this rule has been around for over a decade. It's the Bert Emmanuel rule arising from a play in the 1999 NFC Championship Game. The Competition Committee tried very hard to make this rule easy to interpret, but it has to be one of the most difficult rules to get right because there are all sorts of cases that are nothing like the Bert Emmanuel play. In that play, the ball is caught in the air, never tucked, the player goes to the ground in the process of making the catch, and the ball makes contact with the ground. The idea of the rule is that, in such a case, if the ball doesn't shift in the player's grasp, it is a catch. It's to overturn plays where the player uses the ground to help secure a catch. These days you see the rule being used to overturn plays that to the layman look like obvious catches. On top of that, it's used inconsistently. For example, in the Sunday Night Football opener, Victor Cruz caught a ball near the goal line, got one foot down, secured the ball, and extended the ball in an attempt to score. When the ball hit the ground, it came loose. Technically, it should have been ruled incomplete because Cruz never met the requirements of making a catch before going to the ground, but it was never reviewed. It would have seemed a travesty to overturn it because Cruz obviously had control of the ball because he secured it and then extended it to attempt to score. This play is similar. Although the ruling is technically correct, Robinson had secured the ball on the way to the ground, and the ground jarred the ball loose. Robinson was clearly going to the ground as part of the catch, so the ball has to remain secure throughout the process of going to the ground, but the fact that the ball was clearly secured before going to the ground puts it in a different class than the Bert Emmanuel catch that spawned this rule in the first place. I think there should be a tuck component added to this rule, but given that the refs have clear criteria for making the call and understand all the elements, I doubt the Competition Committee will attempt to make it more complicated than it is. Tough break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmd24 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Ed Hoculi. Go back and look at our record where Ed Hoculi is the ref. I think it's 1 win in the last three years or something like that. He is a terrible ref. He and his crew lack consistency like I have never seen. I agree that it probably wasn't a catch, but if you don't have conclussive video evidence, you cannot overturn that call. That is all. The conclusive evidence was the ball "rolling" in Hochuli's words. Whether the ball could have moved like that with Robinson's left hand underneath it is certainly subject to interpretation, but there was conclusive evidence that the ball touched the ground and moved. It's also possible that there might have been other angles that the broadcast didn't show. They cut to commercial without showing much and only showed one replay on returning from the break. It's not necessarily what Hochuli used to overturn the call, but the ball was moving even in that angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 The conclusive evidence was the ball "rolling" in Hochuli's words. Whether the ball could have moved like that with Robinson's left hand underneath it is certainly subject to interpretation, but there was conclusive evidence that the ball touched the ground and moved. It's also possible that there might have been other angles that the broadcast didn't show. They cut to commercial without showing much and only showed one replay on returning from the break. It's not necessarily what Hochuli used to overturn the call, but the ball was moving even in that angle. I was at the game and I didn't see any conclusive evidence and we saw what Hoculi saw. I went back to watch it at home and they didn't show anything different except the one angle they showed going to commercial. i still don't think that you can say the ball touched the ground conclussively. EDIT: I just watched the Bert Emmanuel play, lol. Wow. This league sometimes. I remember that now, I couldn't believe it. Poetic justice for the non-PI call on the botched FG attempt the week earlier I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Ed Hoculi. Go back and look at our record where Ed Hoculi is the ref. I think it's 1 win in the last three years or something like that. He is a terrible ref. He and his crew lack consistency like I have never seen. I agree that it probably wasn't a catch, but if you don't have conclussive video evidence, you cannot overturn that call. That is all. I agree he is a terrible ref and there were some really ticky tacky calls against us. However Hoculi is equal opportunity terrible - his crew made some really bad calls against Detroit as well IMO. The personal foul for grabbing inside Morris helmet was BS - the defender made contact high but not on the helmet and it just popped off with the contact. The defenceless receiver penalty on the hit on Garcon was just a terrible call - I mean what is the defender sat in zone with Garcon coming towards him supposed to do? Get out of the receivers way? That call on Robinson after review was the right call though. Robinson just HAS to secure that ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Martin, I agree the catch needs to be made and that's on Robinson. I'm just saying I don't think there was enough to overturn it based on the replays we saw in the stadium. It looked like and incomplete pass and probably was, but there was nothing that was conclusive at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf3 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 One thing I've never understood is that a running back just has to break the plane with the nose of the ball and its a touchdown. A receiver has to maintain complete control in the end zone all the way to the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy614 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 @Andy Was it conclusive to the point that you could see that his hand was not underneath it? Did you see a ground level camera to confirm it hit the ground, or are you assuming that it probably did. All I can say is that from the replays I saw, it looks like the ball was moving around in his hands as he hit the ground and the ball touched the ground. There was one angle they replayed that showed this... IMHO, he did not have control of the ball as he fell to the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 One thing I've never understood is that a running back just has to break the plane with the nose of the ball and its a touchdown. A receiver has to maintain complete control in the end zone all the way to the ground Take a look at the post I made no.63 above. If the runner has established possession in the field of play then all you need to do is break the plane with the ball in possession and its a TD. However if you are making a catch and falling into the end zone you only have possession when the catch is complete which is after you are down. You have to maintain possession and show control right through that process and the ground CAN cause loss of possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DButz65 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 What pisses me off about a play like that is.......... When a RB carries the ball near the goal line, if the nose of the ball touches the goal line, then the RB fumbles it into the endzone its a touchdown When Robinson catches that ball yesterday, he does so before he reaches the goal line, has complete control over the ball until he slides a couple of yards into the endzone, THEN the ball touches the ground (yes I admit it touches the ground) I am sorry but thats bullhockey, and the nfl needs to change the rule on that, he had COMPLETE control of the ball as he crosses the goal line, period. The "football move" rule is complete bull****, what in the hell else would a football player be doing in a damn football game? ballerina moves? rhythmic swimming? All I am saying, is if a RB just has to touch the goal line for it to be a touchdown, it should be the same for a WR, either in the act of catching a ball, or running with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sontupelo Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Everybody is 100% right about Hoculi. He over officiates and micromanages games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people on this site really don't understand football at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.