Jeff Porter's Football Talk

[Horn]

He took 3 steps, made a "football move" (by reaching for the end zone) Bad call. Catch all the way. Not only should it have been a catch, it should have been a TD

He was going to the ground. By the rules if you jump to make a catch, you have to secure it if you go to the ground.

You can argue with that all you want, but its the rule.

So technically its a good. Now you can argue its a bad rule.

 

[JEBar]

He was going to the ground. By the rules if you jump to make a catch, you have to secure it if you go to the ground.

You can argue with that all you want, but its the rule.

So technically its a good. Now you can argue its a bad rule.

if he's down before the ball passes the goal line, that is true .... if the ball crossed the goal line before the runner's knee was down that ends the play

 

[Jeff Porter]

if he had of simply tucked it and gone down, they would have had it first and goal on the 1 or 2 .... when he stretched to get to the goal they said he didn't complete the catch when it bounced .... I always thought when the ball breaks the plane it is a TD .... from the video it looked like it broke the plane and then bounced when his hand hit the ground .... oh well, the next game is starting

Oh Jim you so nailed it. This occurred to me this morning... what was their objective? It's 4th down, a playoff game, less than 5 min left, down 5 pts. What do the Cowboys need?

A first down. But he tried to do more than that. If there was no time left on the clock, yep, stretch for it. If it was 1st down, or 2nd down, or 3rd down, yep stretch for it. If you are ahead by 17 pts or down by 10 pts, yep stretch for it. But not in that situation.

Dez is an excellent player and I'd like him on my team, but just an unfortunate poorly timed reach of the ball. He needs to catch it, cradle it, hit the ground, stand up, and not wonder if he's in the end zone.

 

[Jeff Porter]

That is it . If he had just gone down their ball right there. He tried to extend the play therefore he failed to maintain control . The reversing of the call was correct.

BIG thumbs up.

 

[Jeff Porter]

Well I got 2 of the games right. Then Dal had to scramble to beat Det, and I couldn't make up my mind on Pit and Bal.

Three of the games were not in question when the 4th qtr started.

Ok, for the games this weekend:

• Bal @ NE: Pats should win easily, Ravens ran for 49 yds against Pit, that won't get it done against NE;
• Car @ Sea: I mentioned it earlier on this thread, I feel bad for the team that has to go to Sea;
• Dal @ GB: This might be the best game of the weekend, or at least it may be in question when the 4th qtr starts; Romo was sacked 6 times and hit many more, if that happens in GB this weekend, Packers win easily, as long as Rodgers' calf does not bother him; I pick GB
• Ind @ Den: I give Ind a puncher's chance; if Indy can pressure Manning, and Luck plays as well as he did against Cincy, the Colts could pull an upset; what the heck, I'll pick Ind

Referring to myself in the 3rd person, let's see how I / he / Jeff did... Pats did NOT win easily, but they did win. Balt did run the ball well, and NE was the one to have no rush offense (14 yds), yet NE gets it done. Came back from 14-0 in the 1st qtr.
Sea won in a romp.
It may have been the best game of the weekend, and it was certainly in question when the 4th qtr started. Controversial call in 4th qtr, but Dez didn't have to make it controversial.
I didn't know Manning had a torn quad, and most folks outside the Broncos org didn't know he had a torn quad. But there's your explanation. Luck had all the time in the world to throw, and despite 2 INT's and Indy having 10 penalties, the Colts win by 11. Would've been more than that with fewer penalties and no INT's, for sure. Denver was 4-16 on 3rd down. Ouch.

Was that Manning's last game in the NFL? No, I think he'll get his quad healed and he'll be back next year.

Predictions for this Sunday's game coming soon!

Oregon / Ohio State game tonight! First qtr should be good. 2nd qtr might be good. 3rd qtr will give the lean to Oregon. 4th qtr will be all Oregon. Prediction: Ducks beat Bucks, 41-28.

 

[JEBar]

Was that Manning's last game in the NFL? No, I think he'll get his quad healed and he'll be back next year.

interesting .... I'm a long time Manning fan and would hate to see him become another Brett Farve

 

[Horn]

if he's down before the ball passes the goal line, that is true .... if the ball crossed the goal line before the runner's knee was down that ends the play

Nope. Its called the calvin johnson rule.

The goal line makes no difference when coming down with the ball. Gotta maintain possession then too.

Thats the rule. Not saying i agree with it

 

[JEBar]

interesting .... how many times have you seen a guy dive, stick out the ball, hit the pylon, land out of bounds and have the ball roll away ? .... wonder if this will result in any rule tweaks

 

[Horn]

interesting .... how many times have you seen a guy dive, stick out the ball, hit the pylon, land out of bounds and have the ball roll away ? .... wonder if this will result in any rule tweaks

This is usually after a guy has ran several yards with the ball. That is completely different than this.

 

[Jeff Porter]

It's confusing, isn't it? A running back can run for 10 yds, dive for the pylon, touch the ball to it, then land out of bounds, the ball rolls away, TD.

A pass-catcher catches the ball, gets two feet in bounds, gets shoved to the ground immediately as the ball touches the pylon, the ball comes loose when the pass-catcher hits the ground, and it's no catch.

In my opinion, they set the rule this way years ago, to help the refs make the call on the field. Previously, if you got two feet down and had control of the ball, it was a catch right then and there. But then if the ball comes loose in bounds, it's a fumble. And again, based on what I remember, the game was getting too fast for refs to see if the receiver caught the ball and had two feet down.

There was a time also years ago, that if a defender shoved a receiver out of bounds before he could get 2 feet down, in the refs judgement, it would be called a catch whether receiver got 1 or no feet down in bounds.

And yes, instant replay has been around for a long time, so why would they change rules to help the refs on the field? Probably for pace of the game, who knows.

One thing about the rule as it applies to Bryant's catch yesterday: they have this term called "the process of catching the ball". That to me leaves too much open to interpretation. In the game yesterday, instant-replay people decided that Bryant was still in the process of catching the ball. He had 3 feet down and his elbow was down, as he was reaching for the goal line, then the arm with the ball hits the ground and the ball came loose. I wonder if there's an NFL rule that defines "the process of catching the ball".