What is going to get lost from last night's win...

[mistertim]

I wish they were as ticky tacky about holding as they are about things like hands to the face. It's ridiculous that you have to basically tackle a guy or grab him enough that it completely spins him around in order to get a holding call.

[zoony]

16 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Well I think the difference between the end zone and field of play is that a "catch" in the endzone becomes a dead ball immediately.

 

For emphasis, for now the 5th time in this thread.  

 

End Zone.

 

^^^^  There.  Six Times

[ncr2h]

On the Breeland call, the rule isn't a problem.  It's a fine rule.  The problem is the refs.  As a referee, your job isn't to enforce every single infraction to the exact letter of the law.  You're not the star of the show.  Your job is to make sure that one team didn't gain an unfair advantage over the other.  So if it's an important play, and a minor infraction occurred on the opposite side of the field that didn't impact the outcome of the play, wasn't obviously a dirty play, didn't impact player safety, etc., then you don't throw the flag.

The impact of that penalty was like giving a free interception or fumble to one team.  The ref should be cognizant of this and know that a flag should only be thrown for an infraction that actually impacts the play.

[dsciambi]

I turned the game off after the touchdown.

Between it and the Breeland call to extend a 4th down stop, I've had enough of the NFL

I may reconsider if the NFL decides to fix their ref problem.

[NoCalMike]

8 minutes ago, ncr2h said:

On the Breeland call, the rule isn't a problem.  It's a fine rule.  The problem is the refs.  As a referee, your job isn't to enforce every single infraction to the exact letter of the law.  You're not the star of the show.  Your job is to make sure that one team didn't gain an unfair advantage over the other.  So if it's an important play, and a minor infraction occurred on the opposite side of the field that didn't impact the outcome of the play, wasn't obviously a dirty play, didn't impact player safety, etc., then you don't throw the flag.

The impact of that penalty was like giving a free interception or fumble to one team.  The ref should be cognizant of this and know that a flag should only be thrown for an infraction that actually impacts the play.

 

To further emphasize your point. I remember back when Seattle's Defense had those two seasons of being crazy dominant, and Sherman said they were being coached specifically to bend/test/break the rules somewhat because they knew for a fact that the officials won't call flags on every single infraction.  Fast forward to the game a few weeks back when it looked like the officials were making it a point to target Josh Norman on every single ticky tack "hands to the face"   It just shows there is an incredibly inconsistent enforcement of the rules by officials.  They have a lot of power and ability to arbitrarily either call every single thing, or let the more ticky tack stuff go.  

I have no issue when the officials establish one style of calling penalties early in the game and stick to it, however what frustrates me as a viewer, is when they become inconsistent in how they enforce penalties.

[Warhead36]

26 minutes ago, ncr2h said:

On the Breeland call, the rule isn't a problem.  It's a fine rule.  The problem is the refs.  As a referee, your job isn't to enforce every single infraction to the exact letter of the law.  You're not the star of the show.  Your job is to make sure that one team didn't gain an unfair advantage over the other.  So if it's an important play, and a minor infraction occurred on the opposite side of the field that didn't impact the outcome of the play, wasn't obviously a dirty play, didn't impact player safety, etc., then you don't throw the flag.

The impact of that penalty was like giving a free interception or fumble to one team.  The ref should be cognizant of this and know that a flag should only be thrown for an infraction that actually impacts the play.

I wish this were the case but it isn't.

I think the big problem is too many penalties result in automatic first downs. That's WAY too punitive. I can understand for something like pass interference but ilegal contact on something not too far downfield shouldn't result in a free first. Its just absurd.

[clskinsfan]

28 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

To quote Ryan Kerrigan in the postgame:
"I don't know what the hell is or isn't a catch anymore."

With that said, I don't think it cost us, because of the Cravens facemask they would have 1st and goal at the 1 anyway.

This. Either way they were going to score on that drive most likely. 

[bentskin]

2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

They really need to overhaul the "hands to the face" rule.  Sometimes when you are making a natural football move to defend the WR and the WR is making his move to get off the line, your hand or tip of the finger may happen to barely breathe on the helmet.  That should not a flag.   They need to reserve the flags for when a DB straight up slaps or shoves his hand into the helmet.  

Calls like THAT last night can turn a game, especially given the situation. It's 4th down, the Packers are making a questionable move by going for it and on top of all of it, the "penalty" had absolutely no bearing on the play itself.  

They should view this rule the same for all players. If a linemen does this it is not called. They give both the offensive and defensive linemen some leeway. You have to really push on a guy before they call Hands To The Face. DBs and WRs and should be treated similarly. More like the facemask penalty is now. No more 5 yarders, it has to be egregious, a 15 yarder. Same here, it needs to be more than just touching the guy. 

I have Sunday Ticket and of all the games I have watched this year I dont remember seeing any other DBs called for this. I am sure they have and would be interested to see the numbers on Redskins vs all other teams.

HTTR

[Rattlesnake88]

2 hours ago, zoony said:

Reviewed and confirmed.  You will see, there won't be any chatter about this call this week.  Not because of a conspiracy, but because it was the correct call.

Jordy even was disappointed in the drop and then shrugged and laughed when the review withheld. While it's not a conspiracy, it is certainly noteworthy amongst fellow skins fans. 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, purbeast said:

Why wasn't this a touchdown?

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/15/9740760/odell-beckham-touchdown-catch-giants-patriots-referee-controversy

First of all, I think the NFL is full of crap.  They have so many variances in rules that affect the game and fan experience, and (as I mentioned before) it's bad enough having so much subjectivity at play.

 

As to your specific question, the answer was outlined below the video.  It's pretty ridiculous, but them's the rules.  Last night was clearly different in one key aspect, IMO.  The receiver caught the ball and was no longer moving... he didn't have to establish himself as a runner because of this.  

[TimmySmith]

Right or wrong, they have ruled that same exact situation a "no catch" on several prior occasions.  He did not finish they play.  

See Calvin Johnson

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD

 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

2 hours ago, Probos said:

Honestly, according to the semi-nebulous rule it wasn't a terrible call.  The hands to the face call on Breeland to extend the drive was worse IMO.  Very ticky tack.

Who cares,...they won.  Shelve the game and move on to Thursday at Dallas.

I care because I'm tired of the NFL's bull****.

PS **** Goodell

[purbeast]

21 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

First of all, I think the NFL is full of crap.  They have so many variances in rules that affect the game and fan experience, and (as I mentioned before) it's bad enough having so much subjectivity at play.

 

As to your specific question, the answer was outlined below the video.  It's pretty ridiculous, but them's the rules.  Last night was clearly different in one key aspect, IMO.  The receiver caught the ball and was no longer moving... he didn't have to establish himself as a runner because of this.  

You can't really say "clearly" considering the announcers also agreed it was incomplete.  It was not clear at all.

Jordy Nelson even laughed that it was called a touchdown afterwards.  Even he knew it was incomplete.

[TheGreek1973]

2 hours ago, Bigmuss1 said:

Breeland call was a joke....NFL needs to look at that rule, hands to the face used to mean I'm trying to take your head off for an advantage.  I understand under new player safety initiatives that they don't want to see that, however, an incidental finger to the chin hardly warrants a flag, especially on 4th down!!!!!!!

This call and the one on Garcon with the Bengals in OT were two calls that were game impacting in a HUGE way.  I don't know what the process is to engage with the officials but IMO there must be some kind of disciplinary action for the refs, like they have in soccer in Europe where you get rated.  This is why I go back to saying in a multi billion dollar sport not to have professional refs is a most asinine thing there is. 

[Audible_Red40]

I thought by rule and the way they're laid out, that was a touchdown.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, Audible_Red40 said:

I thought by rule and the way they're laid out, that was a touchdown.

Same here - I think they got it right. 

[Probos]

3 minutes ago, Audible_Red40 said:

I thought by rule and the way they're laid out, that was a touchdown.

 

You thought correctly.

[skinny21]

19 minutes ago, purbeast said:

You can't really say "clearly" considering the announcers also agreed it was incomplete.  It was not clear at all.

Jordy Nelson even laughed that it was called a touchdown afterwards.  Even he knew it was incomplete.

"clearly" was referencing how it was different than Beckham having to establish himself as a runner.  

If the ball had come out as Nelson was tucking it, I'd have said incomplete.  Would it help if I repeated that the rules are crap (because they lack clarity in many instances)?  

Look, I thought it was incomplete in real time.  When I saw the replay, I thought "that makes it look like he had possession much longer than he actually did".  What the replay did show though, was that he caught and tucked the ball.  Since he's not going to the ground and wasn't still in the process of making the catch, I believe it's a TD based on the (irritatingly inconsistent/unclear/overly complex) rules.

 

[spaceman47]

While most of the chatter is on the Nelson TD, I'll attempt to change the subject to another thing that may not be talked about.  Was it just me watching at home or was the attendance low?  I know it was cold and I think people were leaving early due to the blowout, but there looked like a lot of empty seats for a winning team during primetime.  Now that I think about it the camera rarely had shots of the crowd during the game and only had close shots of the band after TDs.

[Rattlesnake88]

3 minutes ago, spaceman47 said:

While most of the chatter is on the Nelson TD, I'll attempt to change the subject to another thing that may not be talked about.  Was it just me watching at home or was the attendance low?  I know it was cold and I think people were leaving early due to the blowout, but there looked like a lot of empty seats for a winning team during primetime.  Now that I think about it the camera rarely had shots of the crowd during the game and only had close shots of the band after TDs.

Good point, fair weather fans(literally)?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You know what might get lost in the larger story lines from tonight? Contributions from Chris Thompson (huge catch on third down and a key block on at least one of the deep passes), Vernon Davis (mauling guys in the running game), Mo Harris (another critical catch), and Morgan Moses (gutting it out through a very painful injury). 

It's easy to talk about Kelley, Garcon, Reed, Crowder, and Cousins. Those guys deserve it and put up huge numbers. But some of the smaller plays allowed us to make those big ones!

[Peregrine]

Its become a joke now.  A catch is a catch unless its not a catch unless its a catch unless its might be.

Its horrible that the exact same thing that happens in the field of play, doesnt count in the endzone, and Nelson could have made that same play while falling slightly, held onto the ball for a full second longer, and had the db ripped it out as he hit the ground, it wouldnt be a catch.  Its just insane.

If he had possession long enough for it to be a catch, than why does possession take longer between the endzones?  What if he caught it at the inch line and he crossed as the same amount of time passed before the ball was ripped out?  Insanity.

[TheItalianStallion]

We got away with a facemask on Rodgers on that play, and the refs mistakenly blew Rodgers down when he fell forward untouched on that scramble; he took off for what would've been a TD. I won't quibble; if the Breeland penalty is omitted, then I think it's clear that GB deserved a TD on that possession.

[NickyJ]

Going by previous rulings, that catch shouldn't been a touchdown. Going by previous rulings, it also should have been a touchdown.

Personally, I agree with the principle that he got a touchdown. I'm not upset about that, I think it's the right call. What annoys me is that two weeks from now, a different team will be in the exact same situation and the NFL will turn around and call it a drop. I won't even blame the referees for it. It's the NFL's fault for not making it clear.

At this point, I don't care that about whether a rule is right or wrong. I just want them to all be applied consistently.

[Reaper Skins]

If it had been called an incomplete pass, I think it it would have been upheld as one after review.  

However, It was called a TD on the field so they upheld it as one after the review.  

The rule is vague and subjective enough that they weren't going to overturn the ruling on the field without overwhelming evidence.  It would have added to the "what is a catch" debate even more if it was overturned.

This is a the rare occasion where I think the ref made the wrong call, but I'm happy with the procedure they followed.  Bad calls happen from time to time but it was better that they stuck with the ruling on the field.