Dear refs in the Bears-Lions game

[blackcatgrowl]

Rich Eisen is a commentator. I would hope that he would grill people on this. It's not like I support the rule whatsoever. I've already said multiple times I think it's a crap rule. I can only say that the rule was applied accurately. I agree there's far too much grey area and even moreso inconsistency in the application of the rule. It seems the NFL Referees are hellbent upon enforcing the rule this season, so WRs should take note. I would certainly hope that with the amount of coverage this has gotten has drilled the point home in case their coaches have not (which would be unbelievable).

See... I can't get on board with that.

From what I saw, he had possession, and had two feet on the ground inbounds. So the catch was complete, and THEN he was down before the ball touched the ground (because a part of his body other than his hand or foot touched the ground from contact by an opponent). It looked like a good call to say it's a touchdown, which is what the Official "on the field" signaled.

So someone would have had to over-rule the on-field official. If there was evidence to do so, I'd agree. I'm simply not seeing it.

Here's another example... how many times has a receiver caught a ball, then had the ball come out and it be ruled a fumble? How many times was it a legit catch or an incomplete pass? See... it call comes down to what the official on the field sees, and if there is sufficient evidence to overturn it.

[dimbee]

I think it's all because he went into the air to catch the ball, so all of his movement after the catch are considered part of the catch process until the player comes to a stop.

[blackcatgrowl]

I think it's all because he went into the air to catch the ball, so all of his movement after the catch are considered part of the catch process until the player comes to a stop.

But did he "complete" the pass? The rule is specific, but the application is subjective.

An on-field official ruled "yes". Yet someone overturned it. There has to be overwhelming evidence to overturn an official on the field. I'm not seeing it.

Possession was there. Both feet were in-bounds. He was touched by a defender and part of his body besides his hand or foot touched the field before the ball hit the field, so he was down by contact. Every rule regarding passing indicates it was a complete pass to me.

If there was a rule that receiver has to "show the ref" the ball for it to be complete, I'd agree with the call. There isn't. If there was a rule that there has to be "second move" I'd agree with this. But there isn't

Was it a bad judgment call by the receiver to let the ball touch the ground because he thought it was complete? Sure... no argument there... but that doesn't change the issue.

The issue was that an on-field call was overturned by something that involves a judgment call and is questionable. An on-field call that had a questionable over-turned play cost the Lions the game.

Of course the NFL is going to say it was the right call... but anyone watching at home knows this isn't right. Not cool.

[dimbee]

An on-field official ruled "yes". Yet someone overturned it. There has to be overwhelming evidence to overturn an official on the field. I'm not seeing it.

That's inaccurate. The first ref ruled it a TD then the second ref and the rest grouped together and ruled it incomplete because of the rule. It went to the replay booth and the call was upheld. The call was not changed via replay. It was supported.

[blackcatgrowl]

That's inaccurate. The first ref ruled it a TD then the second ref and the rest grouped together and ruled it incomplete because of the rule. It went to the replay booth and the call was upheld. The call was not changed via replay. It was supported.

Bah. The ref closest to the play signaled a complete pass and TD. If it was the booth upholding a call, or the other refs over-ruling that ref, someone interfered with a play that was correctly called.

[dimbee]

Bah. The ref closest to the play signaled a complete pass and TD. If it was the booth upholding a call, or the other refs over-ruling that ref, someone interfered with a play that was correctly called.

And it would have been overturned if the rulebook agreed with you.

[blackcatgrowl]

And it would have been overturned if the rulebook agreed with you.

I'm honestly not trying to be combative... but seriously...

Please show me where the rulebook is clear that this isn't a complete pass.

I've heard a lot of talk about how the rule is clear on this one... but every rule I've been able to find clearly shows this was the wrong call.

And I'm not going to accept Bill Polian and Rick Eisen saying "Oh... well... this is the right call" as clear rulebook evidence.

[dimbee]

Watch the video. He jumps, catches ball with 2 feet down and falls to the ground. As his hand, with ball within, follows the inertia of his whole body, it hits the ground and the ball pops out. According to the rules, that's an incomplete pass.

Here is the part of the rules you have been missing:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

[blackcatgrowl]

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

I saw a player controlling the ball fully touch the ground. Then place the ball on the field after completing a pass.

Yes... it all happened in one motion... but this goes back to the subjective part of the call. Did he lose control at any point?

Nope. I didn't see that. I don't know how anyone could think he did. He had control the whole time.

P.S. The ball did not "pop out".

[dimbee]

Did he "maintain control of the ball after he touche[d] the ground?"

[blackcatgrowl]

Did he "maintain control of the ball after he touche[d] the ground?"

Yes. For about .5 seconds before he put it on the field, he had control and was on the ground.

[dimbee]

I'm spent.

[blackcatgrowl]

I'm spent.

Again... bad move on his part to do this, because it leaves the play open to interpretation, and it got interpreted against him.

But I think he had plenty of control, and just made a bad decision to put the ball down rather than pull it in. Doesn't change the fact the catch was complete.

[dimbee]

And I totally agree that it was a catch and a TD, as I've said. It just sucks that the rules say it is not.