Chris Chambers TouchDown Catch. | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Chris Chambers TouchDown Catch.

C

CRAZYDOLFAN305

We Are Still Going To The SB
Joined
May 24, 2002
Messages
5,019
Reaction score
118
Age
45
Location
MIAMI, FL
How come when a RB crosses the goal line with just the tip of the ball it's called and touchdown. But when Chris gets both of his feet in bounds with complete control of the ball it's called an imcomplete pass. Who the **** cares where he lends. I think that was a bogus ass called. Did I mention how much I love Chris Chambers.
 
I didn't understand the call either. If a player drops the ball after crossing the plane, it's still a TD. So why isn't this a TD?
 
Chambers had both feet down, had possession, and he dragged his feet. It should be a TD. It's not just us fin fans who think this way. Tim Cowlishaw(Dallas News)on Around the Horn on Monday said that the worst performance in the NFL on Sunday was by the officials in Giants Stadium who took away the touchdown.
 
My theory is that the home team, 7 times out of 10, gets the call on close reviews that can decide the game. Why? They're afraid of getting bottles thrown at them, ala Cleveland. Referees are cowards.


:monkey: refs
 
The first couple of posts refer to a running back reaching the goal line. This is not that. He must come down and have possession. That is the rule, if you don't like that is another issue.
 
Originally posted by J-E-T-S
The first couple of posts refer to a running back reaching the goal line. This is not that. He must come down and have possession. That is the rule, if you don't like that is another issue.
Click to expand...

He DID have possession!! I didnt even see the ball come out of his hands or touch the ground.. It wasnt like he was bobbling the ball.. He had complete control!

Plus, the ground cannot cause a fumble right?? So why would it negate that catch?? That was the most ridiculous call I have ever seen... I dont think the rule applied to that play..
 
Question:
The rule for the ball breaking crossing the goal line is that the ball carrier has to have the ball in his possession and it it has to break the plane and the play is immediately a touchdown. If he loses possession after that, even whil ein the air, it doesn't matter. All that is required for a touchdown is possession in the endzone. Why is this different? It isn't. The official mistakingly applied the rules of a catch in the field of play to this call.

The difference: I player that is entering the end zone has demonstrated possession prior to crossing the plane of the gaol line. For example a running back gets a hand off, makes a football move, and crosses the plane of the endzone losing the ball after the score. It's a touchdown because he demonstrated complete control. Same with a receiver catching the ball running to the zone and losing it on a dive after crossing the plane - touchdown because he demonstrated control
The overturned call the reciver never demonstrated complete control because the ball impacted the ground and bobbled - thus no complete control - thus no catch.
Simple
 
Originally posted by 85inthehall
Question:
The rule for the ball breaking crossing the goal line is that the ball carrier has to have the ball in his possession and it it has to break the plane and the play is immediately a touchdown. If he loses possession after that, even whil ein the air, it doesn't matter. All that is required for a touchdown is possession in the endzone. Why is this different? It isn't. The official mistakingly applied the rules of a catch in the field of play to this call.

The difference: I player that is entering the end zone has demonstrated possession prior to crossing the plane of the gaol line. For example a running back gets a hand off, makes a football move, and crosses the plane of the endzone losing the ball after the score. It's a touchdown because he demonstrated complete control. Same with a receiver catching the ball running to the zone and losing it on a dive after crossing the plane - touchdown because he demonstrated control
The overturned call the reciver never demonstrated complete control because the ball impacted the ground and bobbled - thus no complete control - thus no catch.
Simple
Click to expand...

Chambers had possession. Anyone who is not a Jets fan knows that.
 
watch the replay - he has to demonstrate possession even when he goes down -- the ball hits the ground and bobbles -- once it does that it is incomplete pass - since he never made a football move after the catch he must maintain total possession throughout the play -- he hit the ground - the ball hit the ground and bobbled....it is conclusive
 
He caught the ball, had complete possession, he dragged his feet, his feet hit the pylon in the corner of the endzone, he hit the ground out of bounds, and then finally the ball juggled lightly.


This game is over. It was a BS call, even though you'll never admit it. The only thing that is important now is Baltimore.
 
the rule is simple -- he has to maintain possessin even when hitting the ground -- even you say it bobbled loose -- that is the rule - it can't bobble
 
Originally posted by 85inthehall
watch the replay - he has to demonstrate possession even when he goes down -- the ball hits the ground and bobbles -- once it does that it is incomplete pass - since he never made a football move after the catch he must maintain total possession throughout the play -- he hit the ground - the ball hit the ground and bobbled....it is conclusive
Click to expand...

How is he supposed to make a football move when he is falling to the ground?? If he pulled out a sharpie while he was falling to the ground would it have counted as a TD? It was a damn catch (and a great one at that).. The ball was in his hands the entire time... I didnt even see it bobble when it hit the ground.. There definately was NOT sufficient evidence to overturn the call on the field.. We got shafted but the past is the past.. Phins are 5-4 and that is that...


Jets fans: You're telling me that if it had been Wayne Chrebet instead of Chambers that you guys wouldnt have been livid?
 
if he had bobbled the ball and it's the rule i wouldn;t be happy but it's the rule
chambers did bobble it - which booyeah even says -
as for the football move -- when a catch is made and no move can be made - receiver going out of bounds etc.. he must maintain possession throught the catch and the fall to demonstrate complete possession - he did not as per the letter of the rule
 
Originally posted by 85inthehall
if he had bobbled the ball and it's the rule i wouldn;t be happy but it's the rule
chambers did bobble it - which booyeah even says -
as for the football move -- when a catch is made and no move can be made - receiver going out of bounds etc.. he must maintain possession throught the catch and the fall to demonstrate complete possession - he did not as per the letter of the rule
Click to expand...

It was after the catch that it bounced. It was a catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom