I don't blame you , the Lions got hosed on that call. Like you said last night with Colston or even BigBen last week. Accoring to the screwy NFL rules If Johnson's catch happened at the one yard line and the ball came out as it crossed the goaline it would be a TD, but he caught it in the endzone so he doesn't get benefit of the breaking the plane nonsense.
what cost us those calls was our own receivers not being able to hold onto the football. if you don't hold onto the football your opponents will try to rip it out of your hands and sometimes you will lose possession of the football. This fundamental aspect of the game is taught to players from pop warner football on. its nothing new. don't let defenders steal the ball and you will not have this problem.
Steps do matter. But if the receiver is going to the ground 'in the process', he has to have possession. Cotch had possession WHILE he was down. I understand the refs used their judgement and Im not arguing the review, Im just saying it was a terrible call. It was obvious Cotch caught the ball and then the defender tried to grab it away and was unsuccessful until Cotch has been downed. Play should have been dead, but refs just made a bad call. Same with the Keller int.
The Megatron TD was a little questionable to me. It seemed like CJ lost the ball when the ball hit the ground, but pretended like he did it on purpose. That was my initial thought, but it was so close, it should not have been overturned.
I don't quite understand all the confusion on this play. If the Calvin Johnson non-TD in game 1 against the Bears doesn't tell you how serious the new rule is about what it takes to have a COMPLETION in the act of going to the ground, then I don't know that will. Essentially you have to be able to get up with the ball still in your hands, or at least come to a COMPLETE stop. The ground may not be able to cause a FUMLBE, but it indeed CAN cause an INCOMPLETION. Even if the receiver goes to the ground WITH CONTACT from the Defender, he must maintain possession until his momentum stops. Keller clearly had possession of the ball BEFORE he hit the ground, but Woodson dislodged it before his momentum stopped. Had it hit the ground after this, it would have been incomplete. But since Woodson grabbed it before it hit the ground, it was an INT. The funny thing is that the only part of the play that they got WRONG was that Woodson was never down by contact and it should have been returnable (for a TD). He was never touched AFTER he stopped bobbling it and brought it into possession.
Cut the crap man. Nobody told me to hold on to the ball even after being downed by the defender. Once you are down, its the refs job to call the play dead, which they failed.
Dude, u need to look at the plays again. The receivers didn't lose the ball when they went down. They had possession and with the contact from the defender, the play is dead. Its not rocket science. It was just a bad call and I can live with that, but it wasn't an int.
You are 100% wrong in this statement, you said they allowed the ball to be stripped which would have been a fumble. The officials ruled it was an INT* which meant that in both cases the defenders had control of the football not the offensive players. If what you said happened the story would have been how the officials allowed fumble recoveries after two Jet players were clearly down by contact which would have meant that the Jets players had possession of the ball and that wasn't the case based on the calls on the field.
i'm not arguing with you, nor have i read every post in the thread so apologies if i make you beat a dead horse here.... but does that include traps/ties/dual possesion/whatever you wanna call it? like ins't the issue that both players had possesion at the same time, and thus, its treated like a live ball? if this has been addressed just tell me to stfu and read the thread...
Dual possession can't be a live ball when both players are down. The play is dead while it was a dual possession, hence the ruling goes into the offense's favor. If they weren't down, it would be live ball until someone snatches it out or the forward progress is stopped. Dual possession is the same as the WR having possession.
yeah that confused the hell out of me. like during hte game they described that whole "this can't really be reviewed" explanation that left me thinking "oh so we're fucked, waste of a challange". but prior to that one of the commentators said exactly what you just typed. i don't get it. sorry i just came in here and made shit worse.
Is that really what he said? I was at the game, so I didn't see any of this, but if that's a non-reviewable call (which would be asinine in and of itself) then how could the refs (a) let us challenge it and (b) take their time to review the play. This just gets odder and odder.
But Keller's MOMENTUM had not come to a complete stop. Contact from the defender DOES NOT mean that the play is dead under the rule implemented a couple years ago when a receiver goes to the ground in the act of making a catch. Again, he must maintain possession until his MOMENTUM stops. This includes all bouncing/sliding that may occur after initial contact with the ground EVEN WITH DEFENDER CONTACT. This rule has been implemented and enforced numerous times and the officials have been fairly consistent on it. Keller's momentum was NO WHERE close to stopping before Woodson dislodged it. I'm not trying to say that it is a GOOD RULE. But this is clearly how the NFL has been enforcing these sorts of plays. The idea is to make plays more black and white and less GRAY. Essentially, if you go to the ground EVEN WITH DEFENDER contact in the act of making a catch, you better be able to get up with the football or you will probably not be credited with a catch. Did you not see the Calvin Johnson incompletion that cost the Lions game 1? That was WAY more of a tough call then Keller's.
Yes, essentially the play should not have been allowed to be reviewed because by what Perreira said you can't over rule down by contact or possession so the Jets could not have been overturned.
A complete stop? Once Keller hits the ground and the ball is in his possession, its a completion. I never heard of a complete momentum stop. Keller's impact with the ground was withheld and he had possession of the ball. Woodson grabbed it out of his hand AFTER the impact. Scenario: Keller dives for the ball around 10 yard line, but his momentum takes him in the endzone. But he defender had his hands on Kellers shoulder the entire time even when Keller lands on the two yard line. His momentum took him in the endzone. Is it a TD since the 'procedure' had not been completed until Keller reached the EZ?
If that was the case, then they would have called the CJ play a TD. In fact, they said that he needed to complete the roll on the ground for it to constitute a legal catch. And in his case, that would mean he needed to have possession after being back on his feet, which makes sense for the going to the ground rule, right? No point looking it up in the rulebook because it isn't there. It is in the referee's manual, but the NFL keeps that under lock and key.
