Kind of a sloppy game, Giants recievers need to hang bring the ball in. Defense looked good, they’ll have to keep it going for the year
Eli Manning has a new favorite target, the Giants’ defense showed its teeth once again and the 2010 season opened with a 31-18 victory against the Carolina Panthers today at New Meadowlands Stadium.
As for the Panthers?
see more Señor Gif
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
What in Allah’s name is that big white roll in that bathroom floor? Is that an industrial=sized roll of toilet paper? OMG.. If I had one of those I’d only need to buy toilet paper every 10 years. wow.
On a similar note, you see that last minute TD pass by the Lions? Ruled incomplete. WTH?? COME ON MAN!!!
We need to start fining referees. That was an obvious forced ruling against the LIONS.
Here’s the link… they claim since he let go of the ball after he hit the ground, turned around and placed the ball on the ground, that it was incomplete…
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD?module=HP_headlines
In my eyes, he was already down when his butt hit the ground.
In my eyes, he was already down when his butt hit the ground.
Your eyes are right, but your conclusion is wrong.
The NFL requires that if the receiver goes to the ground, he must maintain control and possession of the ball.
The receiver didn’t.
By rule, the pass was incomplete.
Before you go after the referees for correctly applying the rule, ask yourself why the receiver, who should know the rule (and if he didn’t, that is on him) released the ball?
If he released the ball involuntarily, then clearly the pass was incomplete.
If he released the ball because he wanted to celebrate, then the receiver is an idiot – and the ball is still incomplete.
Fine him.
heheehhee
OK, now the fight is on!!
how long must he hold on to the ball AFTER he is down by either two feet, butt, knee, back, etc? If he landed on his feet, took a third step, then let the ball go…. is that an incomplete?
OH MAN. they took the video down. Maybe they gonna fire the referees??? (yes, I am joking about the whole thing)
But to me, there is no difference in a butt landing and two feet landing?
how many plays do you see where the guy is diving toward end zone corner and as soon as they pass the line they let the ball go. It is ruled a TD because it passed the line.
To me, those are same plays ruled differently.
(The play is still up)
The receiver must maintain possession of the ball as he falls to the ground. Possession in this case is not determined by length of time rather than the ability to control the ball after hitting the ground and doing something other than rolling around. He must be able to make another movement with the ball separate and distinct from the “process of catching the ball.”
The guy diving for the goal line is not the same thing as this play as the one is a receiver catching the ball and the other is a runner with the ball.
The plays are different and ruled differently.
There is a difference in the rules between landing on your feet and going to the ground in the process of gaining possession.
The officials got it right.
(And no, I am not a fan of the Bears. I am not a fan of pro football. I am, however, a referee.)
A referee? Really? Cool. hahahhaa… as they say, I thank you for your service. It’s a thankless job as noted by my earlier comments.
Yeah, I’m still not buying the argument. While they did follow the letter… it’s still a catch. He had two feet down, then a butt down.
If a runner can have a TD by crossing the plane of the goal-line, but then releases the ball. According to the argument, he needs to control the ball for the duration, or at least more football moves. right? But, he only needs to cross the line while having control at that exact moment.
How many times have we seen fumbles at the goal line? But ruled TD’s due to just crossing the line?
I don’t see how this is any different. He had control with the catch. He had control with the two feet down. He had control with the butt down. He had control when the ball hit the ground. But at that point, the ball left his hand. That’s a lot of activity.
To me, it would be different if he had clutched the ball to his chest, and the act of landing on his butt caused the ball to be released. that would be an incomplete.
No, he did not have possession as he could not make a secondary move. That is the key here. He fell to the ground in the process of completing the catch.
What protection a runner has does not matter as the runner already has possession when he crosses the goal line. The receiver does not have possession until he can make a secondary move following the process of making the catch.
Yeah, I know. Urgh. Wasnt this rule a come-down from the former inclusion of the words, “a football move”?
I still don’t like the ruling because he clearly made the catch.
Oh, here ya go…. what about the rule the ground can’t cause a fumble? If he had not contacted the ground he would have maintained control. thus, no fumble, thus a catch..
eh?
eh?
come on?
can ya give me that one?
I still don’t like the ruling because he clearly made the catch.
No, he didn’t make the catch. The catch was not made because in this case, in the process of making the catch, he went to the ground and did not maintain control of the ball.
By rule, this was a no catch.
The ground can’t cause a fumble if the player posses the ball. Once again, by rule, he did not possess the ball so he could not “fumble.”
hhehee. oh grumble grumble grumble.
heh.. even the renowned, esteemed, hallowed and all-knowing Bob Costas agrees with me. So there!!! HA!
Ummm…. no, he didn’t.
Costas said that the play was called correctly. He then went on some rant about it not being “fair.”
The ruling was “fair.” It was applied equally to both teams (which is the definition of “fair.”)
Both teams went into the game knowing the rules. To change this one rule would have been unfair. In fact, Bob’s other illustration of the golfer that grounded his club in a bunker illustrates the point. He said that was “unfair” as well. Yet the golfer was given the rules and the course rules and chose not read them. The other golfers followed the same rules without incident. It would have been grossly unfair for the PGA and the officials to ignore the rules.
Likewise, but it would have been “unfair” to ignore the rule in the middle of the football game.
It is akin to driving down a road with a 30 mph speed limit and getting pulled over.
“What did I do?” you ask the policeman.
“You were doing 30 in a 25 zone” he answers.
“But the sign says 30!”
“We changed that a few minutes ago. It will go back up in an hour or two, maybe three, but for now I need to see your license and registration.”
THAT is unfair and THAT is exactly what Costas is saying.
He wanted the referees to ignore the rules. He wanted them to cover up for the players lack of knowledge of what constitutes a catch in the NFL.
Every year the referees come to training camps and talk about new rule changes and points of emphasis. This catch rule has been on the list of things discussed and shown at the camps for at least 5 years.
Don’t blame the refs. Don’t blame the rule. Blame the idiot player who screwed up.
Unfortunately, the ruling was correct as the it applies to the way the rule is written, just like the Brady “tuck rule”.
However, I would ask two questions… First, if this pass were thrown to the sidelines and the receiver was trying to get his feet down in bounds, would the rule be applied differently? I believe it would. They would have been looking to see if the receivers feet were down, and whether he had possession of the ball prior to his feet going out of bounds. In which case the play would have been ruled a reception.
Secondly, how much does the defender play into the ruling? Calvin Johnson made the reception cleanly and was hit by Bowman of the Bears, knocking him to the ground. Does this, or should this, be applied to the ruling? Had Johnson not been hit and just allowed to catch the ball and come down with it unopposed, I believe he would have caught it without incident. However the defender forcing him to the ground is what caused the ball to be jarred loose, thus making the receiver “complete the catch”.
Now the rule applies to both teams, and I would say anyone who is whining about a single call has no standing, because my response would have been, “you had 59:30 to make it into the end zone”. But I think this is generally a bad rule and should be changed, much in the way that the way that “the ground cannot cause a fumble”.
First, if this pass were thrown to the sidelines and the receiver was trying to get his feet down in bounds, would the rule be applied differently?
No. As long as the receiver goes to the ground as part of making the catch, he must maintain control throughout the process.
Secondly, how much does the defender play into the ruling?
None. The factor is the catch – not what others are doing. If you wanted to apply the same thinking, then a forward pass that is tipped or deflected by a defensive player and then caught out of bounds by an offensive player would be ruled a catch as the defense had caused the ball to go out of bounds. Furthermore, remember that in the NFL a player that is making a catch along a boundary line must come down with both feet in bounds. If he is knocked or carried out of bounds before getting both feet in, it is ruled “no catch.”
This particular catch rule was changed back in the early 2000’s due to a play with the Tampa Bay Bucs in a playoff game. The old rule said that if the ball touched the ground at all in the process of making a catch, it was not a catch. The new rule allows players to get their hands under the ball and secure it, but they still must demonstrate control. It is a rule that actually gives MORE catches, not fewer.
It is the sister to the rule that requires a player in the middle of the field to catch and then make a move not associated with the catch for it to be a catch. Otherwise there would be tons of hits that result in fumbles.
It is also similar to the baseball rule where, if a player is making a running catch, and “catches” the ball, but while still running, crashes into a wall causing the ball to fall out of the glove, it is not a catch.
hehehee.. ok, let’s kill this horse a bit more.
Quote:
First, if this pass were thrown to the sidelines and the receiver was trying to get his feet down in bounds, would the rule be applied differently?
(then you said) “No. As long as the receiver goes to the ground as part of making the catch, he must maintain control throughout the process.”
May I make the argument that he did control the ball through the process of falling to the ground and being “grounded” with his butt? It was only as part of his actions, where he rolled out of the fall and in to getting up (after he was down) did he release the ball.
See, the problem here for me is where does the “catch” end? Is it when the ref blows the whistle? When the player gets both feet down and control the ball? When a THIRD part of the body contacts field of play while ball is controlled? When the player runs off the field? After the Defense lets him go?
When is a player considered “down” I guess is the main question? If he is down when his butt hit the ground due to the actions of the Defense, then shouldn’t that be the point the play should stop? He had control at two feet down. He had control at butt down. He had control at roll out. He only released the ball when he went to get up.
I know the rule is clear. I know the call was right and clear. I know the teams, the world, agreed to the rules. But rules can change as you have even stated.
I think this one rule that needs to be looked at again. Which is what Costas was really saying.
Hey Gitarcarver. Rep points to ya man.
Though, you might be a bummer at a Lions house party. 
I agree, the way the rule was written, it was applied correctly. I juts think it is a poor rule. That is something the rules committee will need to adjust if they deem it a problem in the off season. I would like to see them do it because in my opinion, it would solve more problems than it creates.
May I make the argument that he did control the ball through the process of falling to the ground and being “grounded†with his butt? It was only as part of his actions, where he rolled out of the fall and in to getting up (after he was down) did he release the ball.
You’re hung up on when he was “down” as opposed to “when does the process of the ‘catch’ end?”
If he goes to the ground he must show possession after the “catch.” The “catch” portion ends when starts another move other than rolling on the ground.
In other words, what people are missing is that if this play happened 5 years ago, there is no catch because the ball hits the ground before he makes another move. The rule change allowed him to secure the ball, have a portion of the ball touch the ground, and if he makes another move, its a catch.
The dummy decided that releasing the ball before he stood up was a good move. It wasn’t as the catch hadn’t ended yet. He hadn’t made another move to end the “catch process.”
yeah, yeah, I know. Rub salt in to the wound, wont’ ya.
Now, see, that’s why people don’t like referees. No flexibility at all. No tolerance for alternative opinions.
I hear Obama is going to make a speech about how the Refs acted stupidly.
No flexibility at all. No tolerance for alternative opinions.
That’s funny.
If you only knew how officials talk about rules when amongst themselves you would be shocked. :)
It is just that we hear a lot of myths when we officiate a game. People get their rule’s knowledge from commentators who get their knowledge from the back of milk cartons.
Generally speaking, when people say something isn’t “fair,” what they really mean is that it is not what they would have done or what they would have called. Officials have a different word for that.
We call it “cheating.”
Once on the field, we don’t care what the rule is. By that I mean all our arguing with committees, leagues and organizations over the rule and its interpretation is done. We want to call the game straight down the middle. What is good for one team is good for the other. That is what is fair.
Just out of curiosity, how much guts do you think it took the official to make the correct call in the Detroit game yesterday? How about the holding call at the end of the Dallas / Washington game?
Too many people in the stands would have let the call of the touchdown stand in the Detroit game and / or not called the holding penalty in the Dallas game. It would be the easy way out.
The officials showed a lot of guts out there yesterday in making the right, proper, correct and fair call.
Hey gitarcarver,
I heartedly agree. Referees, especially those refs, put themselves on the line all the time. I mentioned in a post above that it takes alot of guts, and a dedication, to be a ref. I commend anyone who does it. My former next door neighbor, when I was a kid and with whom I still keep in contact, is a high school football ref. Funny thing is, he is the shape of a cue-ball. hahahaa
Like you, he is a stickler for how the rules are written. He calls it like it is. No matter.
thanks for keeping me focused gitarcarver.