The NFL has to change one rule

[BillsSabresB.C.T. Fan]

Chris Simms lofted a perfect spiral to Edell Shepherd on third-and-10 from the Washington 35, but the Tampa Bay receiver lost control of the ball as he was coming down in the end zone. Simms, unaware the pass was ruled incomplete, began celebrating near the sideline - and the Bucs' stadium crew set off premature fireworks. Tampa Bay asked for a video review, burning its final timeout, but the call was correctly upheld by instant replay.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/special1/article.adp?id=20060107194509990004

[Pride]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

I saw the replays.... the ref called incomplete immediately after the player hit the ground... there was no reason for anyone to think it was a catch... no ref ever signaled it!

[chubluv]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

yeah I dont understand that rule. He had control of the ball took the mandatory 2 steps and crossed the plain of the goaline. how is that not a TD? Just because he lost control of the ball as he hit the ground its not a TD. I think thats a bunch of BS !!! What happened to the ground not causing a fumble? I know it really didnt cause the ball to come out but his knees were on the ground first then the ball was juggled. I just dont get it...

[OpIv37]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

yeah I dont understand that rule. He had control of the ball took the mandatory 2 steps and crossed the plain of the goaline. how is that not a TD? Just because he lost control of the ball as he hit the ground its not a TD. I think thats a bunch of BS !!! What happened to the ground not causing a fumble? I know it really didnt cause the ball to come out but his knees were on the ground first then the ball was juggled. I just dont get it...

I didn't see the play, but the ground CAN cause an incomplete pass- if he was bobbling the ball it doesn't matter if his knee hit or if he crossed the goal line.

If the NFL needs to change a rule, it should be the way instant replay is used on incomplete pass plays and penalties- those are the most controversial and subjective plays in football and it's ridiculous that they can't be challenged.

[FirstDownBills]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

yeah I dont understand that rule. He had control of the ball took the mandatory 2 steps and crossed the plain of the goaline. how is that not a TD? Just because he lost control of the ball as he hit the ground its not a TD. I think thats a bunch of BS !!! What happened to the ground not causing a fumble? I know it really didnt cause the ball to come out but his knees were on the ground first then the ball was juggled. I just dont get it...

He never had full possession of the ball to begin with, the ball was juggling around before he even landed. It was the right call made by the officials.

[Mr. Cynical]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

We've seen a million plays where the nose of the ball just has to break the plane of the goal line and it's good, even if the guy fumbles it a millisecond afterwards. The play stops the millisecond the ball crosses the plane.

Now, I know the argument is going to be that the player has to have the ball in his possession *first* or it doesn't matter if the ball broke the plane. What about those catches where the player is flying out of bounds but drags a foot before crashing into the cameraman and losing the ball? They say if the player catches the ball and two feet touch the ground, it's a catch. Some will say it doesn't matter because he is out of bounds at that point when he totals the camera guy but to me that's hogwash. If you call it a catch when 2 feet hit and he has control before going out of bounds, then you should be calling it the same way if the player lands and the ball pops out. He had control when his 2 feet hit the ground.

I agree - there needs to be a tweak on this one.

[FirstDownBills]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

We've seen a million plays where the nose of the ball just has to break the plane of the goal line and it's good, even if the guy fumbles it a millisecond afterwards. The play stops the millisecond the ball crosses the plane.

Now, I know the argument is going to be that the player has to have the ball in his possession *first* or it doesn't matter if the ball broke the plane. What about those catches where the player is flying out of bounds but drags a foot before crashing into the cameraman and losing the ball? They say if the player catches the ball and two feet touch the ground, it's a catch. Some will say it doesn't matter because he is out of bounds at that point when he totals the camera guy but to me that's hogwash. If you call it a catch when 2 feet hit and he has control before going out of bounds, then you should be calling it the same way if the player lands and the ball pops out. He had control when his 2 feet hit the ground.

I agree - there needs to be a tweak on this one.

He did not have full control. The ball was juggling around the entire time. And when you see players fly out of bounds but drag the feet and it's called a complete pass it's because they maintained full possession of the ball before going out. Meaning, the ball was not juggling around. The slamming into the camera man is well after the play so it does not matter if he loses the ball at that point.

[Mr. Cynical]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

He did not have full control. The ball was juggling around the entire time. And when you see players fly out of bounds but drag the feet and it's called a complete pass it's because they maintained full possession of the ball before going out. Meaning, the ball was not juggling around. The slamming into the camera man is well after the play so it does not matter if he loses the ball at that point.

He had full control when he had two feet on the ground. It only started to bobble up when his knee hit on the way down. So, just like the guy dragging his feet before flying out of bounds, he had control the moment his 2 feet touched the ground.

I won't argue it though - it is just my opinion.

[DaBills]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

On catches though, that's different. According to NFL rules:

8. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

I heard a further explained by Theisman on ESPN as "a receiver has to catch, maintain possession, and then make a football move."

Runners just have to break the plane, even if a defender knocks it out once they cross. Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.

But as for that play, I saw it and as he was rolling over, he fell onto the ball, which was touching the ground as you see in the video frame above. Once that ball hits the ground, end of story.

The rule they need to change is more a restriction than anything. When they go to the replay booth, whatever a ref calls on the field greatly affects how the booth will review a play. If the ref rules 'down buy contact,' then the booth has the burden of proof to find overwhelming evidence to overturn that. They really can't look at anything else.

I say, if the replay is there, let it reverse the call no matter how the refs initially called it. I mean ****, Vince Young's knee was down the other night and he gets off a lateral. Are you kidding me?

When the Redskins recovered a ball for TD, a player from Tampa made contact while the redskin was on the ground, clearly shown on replay. So down by contact, right? Nope. The ref rules touchdown even after going to the booth. HOW? The replay TV showed was obvious. Unless the booth is not getting the camera shots we do, then something's really wrong with the system.

And the same thing with inadvertant whistles. If they ref admits it was a mistake, ok, fine. Play the down over then.

[Mr. Cynical]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

On catches though, that's different. Receiver has to maintain possession throughout the play. If he juggles it on the way down, then it's not a catch. Runners just have to break the plane, even if a defender knocks it out once they cross. Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.

But as for that play, I saw it and as he was rolling over, he fell onto the ball, which was touching the ground as you see in the video frame above. Once that ball hits the ground, end of story.

I understand your point about catching vs. runners breaking the plane. I agree. But my point is this...

Scenario #1: WR catches the ball in the end zone with left foot down, then his right foot comes down, then he falls down *out* of bounds. The ruling is that he caught it because he had control of the ball *at the moment both feet touched the ground*.

Scenario #2: WR catches the ball in the end zone with left foot down, then his right foot comes down, then he falls down *in* bounds and the ball pops out. The ruling is that he didn't catch it because he didn't have control *on the ground*, even though he had control when his 2 feet touched the ground.

So IMO, to be consistent, they need to rule it complete in one or the other below:

A) when the WR hits the ground in both scenarios (regardless of where he hits it, in or out of bounds)

B) when the WR controls the ball as both feet touch in bounds

[Historian]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

He had control and two feet down. It should be a TD.

This is a new rule, and it stinks.

[Meathead]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

I understand your point about catching vs. runners breaking the plane. I agree. But my point is this...

Scenario #1: WR catches the ball in the end zone with left foot down, then his right foot comes down, then he falls down *out* of bounds. The ruling is that he caught it because he had control of the ball *at the moment both feet touched the ground*.

Scenario #2: WR catches the ball in the end zone with left foot down, then his right foot comes down, then he falls down *in* bounds and the ball pops out. The ruling is that he didn't catch it because he didn't have control *on the ground*, even though he had control when his 2 feet touched the ground.

So IMO, to be consistent, they need to rule it complete in one or the other below:

A) when the WR hits the ground in both scenarios (regardless of where he hits it, in or out of bounds)

B) when the WR controls the ball as both feet touch in bounds

my understanding is that it doesnt make a difference whether hes in bounds or not, if he falls to the ground and loses it, even out of bounds, its incomplete

[Michael82]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

He had control and two feet down. It should be a TD.

This is a new rule, and it stinks.

Good post. It does stink, because that ruling just sent Gregg Williams into the 2nd round of the playoffs.

[Typ0]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

he never had control of the ball.

[Ingtar33]

Re: The NFL has to change one rule

Cynical, you're wrong.

If a WR catches the ball, taps two toes, falls out of bounds and loses the ball its going to be ruled incomplete, just as if it happened in the endzone

There aren't two separate rules, there is one rule, and it applies to the whole of the football field.

to make a completed catch you need.
1) control of the football (the ball can even touch the ground, as long as it is not moving in your hands)
2) establish possession in the field of play (two feet in bounds)
3) demonstrate the ability to make a football move (retain control of the football even on contact with the ground)

Why was this rule changed? This was changed to eliminate cheap touchdowns and fumbles. In fact most obscure and odd football rules are designed to eliminate cheap turnovers. This rule is in play on EVERY passing play. The primary reason for the rule is to prevent the insta-fumble that often happens when a WR catches the football, and gets creamed almost simultaneously.

The logic is, if you are going to apply this standard to the field outside the end zones... you need to apply it to the end-zones as well.