The Catch?

[finfansince72]

This is the TUCK RULE 2006. He caught the ball, took two steps, then fell to his knee, all before "losing possession." Touchdown. The NFL is the most over-officiated game in professional sports.

I agree, I mean the refs made the correct call according to the rules but the rules are overkill. A guy catches the ball takes two steps then bobbles then falls to a knee and its not a catch by rule? OK. Guess they used the rule properly, just like the tuck rule was called properly. Everyone on the board cried whe it happened to Chambers and Brady, guess its cool as long as its not Miami or infavor of a rival right?

 

[SCall13]

Wrong, and wrong again.

The ball was moving before his knee hit the ground. I'll even go back and watch the play for you again if you want.

Plus the official explained the knee didn't matter.

I watched it over and over and over and I thought his knee hit just before the ball moved. But since the replay was inconclusive, they couldn't overturn it anyway.

 

[SCall13]

I agree, I mean the refs made the correct call according to the rules but the rules are overkill. A guy catches the ball takes two steps then bobbles then falls to a knee and its not a catch by rule? OK. Guess they used the rule properly, just like the tuck rule was called properly. Everyone on the board cried whe it happened to Chambers and Brady, guess its cool as long as its not Miami or infavor of a rival right?

Yep, I thought he took two steps as well. The rule is screwed up. If a player takes two steps, it should be catch.

 

[Metal Panda]

This is the TUCK RULE 2006. He caught the ball, took two steps, then fell to his knee, all before "losing possession." Touchdown. The NFL is the most over-officiated game in professional sports.

I can agree that the game of football has more nuances than any other. But still, if they're in writing, you must uphold them until they're changed.

 

[Metal Panda]

I actually thought it was a TD. At first, he didn't have possession but then I though he had possession between his arm and his body before his knee hit. The commentators were being idiots as usual so I don't know.

THE KNEE HITTING...DOES...NOT...MATTER.

repeat after me.

 

[Metal Panda]

I watched it over and over and over and I thought his knee hit just before the ball moved. But since the replay was inconclusive, they couldn't overturn it anyway.

the official never said the evidence was inconclusive. It was pretty clear it wasn't a catch. And I repeat for the gazillionth time...the official (and Pereira) make it clear that it doesn't matter whether the ball moved before or after his knee hit.

 

[SCall13]

the official never said the evidence was inconclusive. It was pretty clear it wasn't a catch. And I repeat for the gazillionth time...the official (and Pereira) make it clear that it doesn't matter whether the ball moved before or after his knee hit.

You're insistence is not going to change other people's opinions. In MY mind and others, whether YOU like it or not, it looked like it could have been ruled a catch. If it were in the open field and called a fumble, would it have been overruled and called incomplete? It looked to me like he caught the ball, maintained control for TWO steps before his knee touched just before the ball came loose. You don't have to agree. That's how I saw it. The ref didn't find any conclusive evidence to overtuen the call on the field. He doesn't have to say he it was inconclusive. He just had to make the call. His call was correct because of the rule of instant replay. But the call on the field was questionable.

 

[Alex44]

You're insistence is not going to change other people's opinions. In MY mind and others, whether YOU like it or not, it looked like it could have been ruled a catch. If it were in the open field and called a fumble, would it have been overruled and called incomplete? It looked to me like he caught the ball, maintained control for TWO steps before his knee touched just before the ball came loose. You don't have to agree. That's how I saw it. The ref didn't find any conclusive evidence to overtuen the call on the field. He doesn't have to say he it was inconclusive. He just had to make the call. His call was correct because of the rule of instant replay. But the call on the field was questionable.

I saw it the same way you did

As soon as your knee hits and you have established possesion the play is OVER

You cant fumble, you cant drop it *because you have possesion already established*

It was a catch through my eyes

 

[Metal Panda]

You're insistence is not going to change other people's opinions. In MY mind and others, whether YOU like it or not, it looked like it could have been ruled a catch. If it were in the open field and called a fumble, would it have been overruled and called incomplete? It looked to me like he caught the ball, maintained control for TWO steps before his knee touched just before the ball came loose. You don't have to agree. That's how I saw it. The ref didn't find any conclusive evidence to overtuen the call on the field. He doesn't have to say he it was inconclusive. He just had to make the call. His call was correct because of the rule of instant replay. But the call on the field was questionable.

The official's comments made it clear that it was not overturned not due to the fact that it was 'inconclusive', but that the visual evidence they saw was clear. He gave specific details as to what happened and why that made it not a catch.

The call on the field was not questionable and I doubt the Bucs even send a complaint to the league on it. Hell they barely even complained about it after it was upheld.

And I'm getting sick and tired of repeating myself--having the ball for two steps had NO BEARING on whether it is a catch or not. Mike Pereira stated this in the quote I pos....

Forget it. I give up. You obviously haven't read it the first time, the second time, the third time, the fourth time, or the fifth time, so why bother posting it a sixth time.

 

[Alex44]

The official's comments made it clear that it was not overturned not due to the fact that it was 'inconclusive', but that the visual evidence they saw was clear. He gave specific details as to what happened and why that made it not a catch.

The call on the field was not questionable and I doubt the Bucs even send a complaint to the league on it. Hell they barely even complained about it after it was upheld.

And I'm getting sick and tired of repeating myself--having the ball for two steps had NO BEARING on whether it is a catch or not. Mike Pereira stated this in the quote I pos....

Forget it. I give up. You obviously haven't read it the first time, the second time, the third time, the fourth time, or the fifth time, so why bother posting it a sixth time.

Once You have clear possesion of the ball in the endzone the play is over regardless of what happens after

He had that clear possesion before he even started to go to the ground, so the rule of maintaining possesion should have no effect on this play

 

[Metal Panda]

Once You have clear possesion of the ball in the endzone the play is over regardless of what happens after

He had that clear possesion before he even started to go to the ground, so the rule of maintaining possesion should have no effect on this play

for the love of god...

you have to maintain possession if you're being tackled in the end zone, or in the open field, all the way into the ground. This has been stated I can't remember how many countless times in this thread (which is starting to get irritating), and the game itself.

So yes, it does matter, and no, it was not a catch.

 

[SCall13]

The official's comments made it clear that it was not overturned not due to the fact that it was 'inconclusive', but that the visual evidence they saw was clear. He gave specific details as to what happened and why that made it not a catch.

The call on the field was not questionable and I doubt the Bucs even send a complaint to the league on it. Hell they barely even complained about it after it was upheld.

And I'm getting sick and tired of repeating myself--having the ball for two steps had NO BEARING on whether it is a catch or not. Mike Pereira stated this in the quote I pos....

Forget it. I give up. You obviously haven't read it the first time, the second time, the third time, the fourth time, or the fifth time, so why bother posting it a sixth time.

Yeah, why bother posting YOUR OPINION more than once. We have already read it. The referee doesn't have to say whether the call was inconclusive or not. He just had to state his ruling on the play, which I was the right one based on how the rules work. I'm not defending the Bucs. I didn't want them to win, so it isn't like my opinion of it is biased. The fact is, open field rules and endzone rules are different from each other and vague. Had that been in the open field and called a fumble, the ruling would have probably been overturned and the player called down on the play.

 

[Alex44]

for the love of god...

you have to maintain possession if you're being tackled in the end zone, or in the open field, all the way into the ground. This has been stated I can't remember how many countless times in this thread (which is starting to get irritating), and the game itself.

So yes, it does matter, and no, it was not a catch.

That rule doesnt apply here because he was running before he started to be tackled, the rule only comes into play if the tackle is simultanious to the catch which it wasnt, if anything its a fumble at that point, as if you were running down the field with clear possesion and then were tackled

 

[Metal Panda]

The fact is, open field rules and endzone rules are different from each other and vague.

edited because I do not like the original tone of the post.

 

[SCall13]

THEY ARE NOT. have you read the damn Pereira quote once?

to hell with this. you all are clearly not listening or reading a thing. Good day.

:rasp: OK