Catch/no catch

[patmyne]

Tell me how Calvin Johnson didn't complete the process of a catch against the Bears a few years ago compared to that last play today? So I guess my understanding is if you don't fall down you only need split second control, but if you catch a pass, take 2 steps, get tackled and hit ground and it comes loose then arms go waving. Football rules have become a joke. Everything is judgemental.

 

[ThunderHawk]

He had it long enough. Close call but correct call.

 

[MrEHawk]

He had it long enough. Close call but correct call.

Ehhhhhhh...no. There is no such thing as "long enough" anymore. If you bobble it at any point, it's supposed to be incomplete. I don't really care that we lost on that play, mind you. I would have much rather gotten out of there earlier as opposed to freezing for another 5 OTs only to see KF and Gerg derp it up anyway. It was rather merciful of the zebras to put us out of our misery at that point. But there is no way on the planet that can be considered a valid catch under today's interpretation of the rules.

 

[tweeterhawk]

I, too, thought he had possession long enough. I was more interested in why he was so able to push off the iowa defender to make that catch as well as a previous key catch. Several, in fact. Should have been offensive PI.

 

[BigD]

I, too, thought he had possession long enough. I was more interested in why he was so able to push off the iowa defender to make that catch as well as a previous key catch. Several, in fact. Should have been offensive PI.

You are correct sir it was pass interference. I also understand where the OP is coming from. How often do we see a player grab a ball and have possession of it just as much as this guy did and then when they hit the ground it comes out and it's called incomplete? Would solve a lot of headaches if they said the play is not finished until the Ref blows his whistle. That includes after you cross the goal line and deliberately drop the ball. If the whistle didn't blow then its a fumble. I know that's not the rules and as soon as you break the plane of that goal line stripe and have possession it considered a TD and the play is considered dead and over at that point. Passing plays are a little different except as in this case where it occurred in the end zone. If that had been a side line pass yes it would have been likely called incomplete.

 

[ColoradoHAWKEYE]

Eh, no big deal it just put us out of our misery sooner.... I do question the offensive PI non-calls as well though. They just seemed a "little" more blatent than normal.

 

[MoseSchrute]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Powell have one like that early in the year and had it taken away? Not that it matters now.

 

[Hawknick]

On that last cornsucker FG drive that should have been offensive pass interference on Bell for the push off if any call was to be made. Maybe the refs are color blind. It is completely bogus that I guy who got tackled should have the call go against him. The other one that really gets me was the no call when Duzey was being held. That was so obvious that it was arpeggios not to call it. That would have been a touchdown. If it was not for the bogus interference call against Mabin Iowa probably would have won in regulation though.

 

[HomerChampless]

One thing that makes the Bell catch different than the C. Johnson attempted catch is: Bell wasn't falling to the ground in the process of the catch. As soon as Bell had possession of the ball over the goal line plane, it was correctly called a TD.

You point to this as the turning point of the game?? How 'bout Iowa's turnovers? How about Iowa's breakdown of special teams play? Iowa's punter should have, at least after the first long punt return, punted the ball out of bounds or high enough to prevent a return.How about the back seven's inability to defend which has been a problem all year long? So Iowa went to zone defense a la Norm's defense, and their QB picked them apart. Once Iowa's back 7 was loosened up (and not in the box), their running back went wild.

 

[Hawknick]

Bell is still a worthless piece of garbage who has to push off to do anything.

 

[patmyne]

One thing that makes the Bell catch different than the C. Johnson attempted catch is: Bell wasn't falling to the ground in the process of the catch. As soon as Bell had possession of the ball over the goal line plane, it was correctly called a TD.

You point to this as the turning point of the game?? How 'bout Iowa's turnovers? How about Iowa's breakdown of special teams play? Iowa's punter should have, at least after the first long punt return, punted the ball out of bounds or high enough to prevent a return.How about the back seven's inability to defend which has been a problem all year long? So Iowa went to zone defense a la Norm's defense, and their QB picked them apart. Once Iowa's back 7 was loosened up (and not in the box), their running back went wild.

Ok, so how many times do you see ppl catch a pass, turn to run and have it knocked out and it's ruled incomplete? It's the same freakin difference and shouldn't matter if it's "across the goal line." It's called "completing the process of a catch" and there shouldn't be variances.

No I'm not saying that's the turning point, I'm ******** about a judgemental rule that makes about as much sense as gabe olesani getting kicked out of a game for another judgemental rule....

 

[HomerChampless]

Bell didn't have to turn and run... he was already in the endzone. Once the ball crosses the plane of the endzone, a touchdown is scored and the play is over. That's why some defenders get unnecessary roughness calls against them because the touchdown is scored, the play is over.. usually way over, and the defender still hits the player hard.

 

[patmyne]

Bell didn't have to turn and run... he was already in the endzone.

I understand that bud, but he held the ball for a way shorter period than any instance of this rule coming into play which makes it a terrible rule.

It shouldn't matter if you CATCH a 10 yard pass with your back to a defender, take a step as you turn, defender swats it out and it's ruled incomplete or catch the ball the exact same way in the end zone for a split second standing up and have what happened yesterday and that's a catch. The process of the play was NOT complete. If it was then the Calvin JOhnson play and the many like it are even more ridiculous.

Let me add that I believe it WAS a catch and that again I'm just ******** about a stupid rule. A catch is catch and shouldn't matter if you fall to the ground and it comes loose or you catch it standing and bobble it like yesterday. It's the same difference

 

[HomerChampless]

You don't get it. There is no time requirement to have the ball in the endzone. AS SOON AS THE BALL BREAKS THE PLANE, IT IS A TD AND THE PLAY IS OOOOOOVER. Haven't you ever seen a back reach forward before he's down to cross or equal the TD plane and then loose the ball milliseconds later? It's still ruled a TD.

 

[patmyne]

You don't get it. There is no time requirement to have the ball in the endzone. AS SOON AS THE BALL BREAKS THE PLANE, IT IS A TD AND THE PLAY IS OOOOOOVER. Haven't you ever seen a back reach forward before he's down to cross or equal the TD plane and then loose the ball milliseconds later? It's still ruled a TD.

Lol so in your theory the Calvin Johnson play is dead the second he catches since he's across the plane. Same goes for the guy stretching over the sideline to snag a td and catches it, but then hits ground and drops it, play is dead since he broke the plane. Spin that for me...

 

[patmyne]

Bell caught the ball IN the end zone, he didn't break the plane...

 

[HawkinCarroll]

Correct call was made. It is just like when a ball carrier crosses the goal line and then fumbles reaching across.

The outrage should be over giving up a 17 point lead

 

[MrEHawk]

You don't get it. There is no time requirement to have the ball in the endzone. AS SOON AS THE BALL BREAKS THE PLANE, IT IS A TD AND THE PLAY IS OOOOOOVER. Haven't you ever seen a back reach forward before he's down to cross or equal the TD plane and then loose the ball milliseconds later? It's still ruled a TD.

He had to have possession of the ball, which he clearly did not. How is this any different than the D Powell play against Ball St?

 

[PCHawk]

Lol so in your theory the Calvin Johnson play is dead the second he catches since he's across the plane. Same goes for the guy stretching over the sideline to snag a td and catches it, but then hits ground and drops it, play is dead since he broke the plane. Spin that for me...

In my opinion if that catch would have not been in the endzone, it would have been ruled a fumble, not incomplete. He caught the ball, had possession, then had it knocked out. It was close to being close. But I think it was the right call. I do think they get carried away with finishing the catch though. They take away some obvious catches because of that rule.

 

[weis4heis]

It was clearly a catch. What is the time requirement to hold onto the ball after catching a TD pass? 1 second? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? As to the possible offensive PI on that play, upon further review he didn't actually push off although it appears that he did. He simply made a swim move with his arm to get cleared back across the defender and have both arms available to make the catch.