"It was a complete pass but was incomplete"

[BrianS]

We challenged that the pass was complete.  That was the challenge.  They ruled that it was complete.

If it was a completion, ok, shouldn't the Rams then have the ball at the spot the receiver was tackled at?  That didn't happen.  You can't rule that it was complete, and spot the ball the way they did.  There were a ludicrous number of inconsistencies with the way that played out.

This was just a mess.

[Sgt Schultz]

I didn't see the play, but if they called it incomplete acknowledged it was complete but upheld the ruling on the field, this is the rule they had to be using.  I copied this directly from the NFL rule book under the section on instant replay rulings.

ARTICLE 2. PLAYS INVOLVING POSSESSION.
Item 1. Completion of a Pass. Whether a pass was complete or incomplete.

(2) Incomplete Changed to Catch and Fumble. When a ruling of incomplete is changed to a catch and fumble, the ballwill be awarded at the spot of recovery to the team that recovers the ball in the immediate continuing action. If there is no clear recovery, the ruling on the field stands even if the ball clearly was caught.

I've actually seen that once before. You guys tell me if the Panthers recovered "in the immediate continuing action" because I can't find the play anywhere online. 

The problem is it potentially puts the screws to the team twice, like it did yesterday.  I guess they figure calling it incomplete pretty much wipes out everything, and I guess I understand the rationale if there is no clear recovery or the play had stopped and then some guy walks over and "recovers" it by picking it up to hand it to the official.  But then, you wind up taking the timeout away on the challenge, even though what was challenged was correct: it was a catch and fumble. 

They at least need to clarify the timeout piece of that.  It is something straight out of Catch-22.

[Ramfan128]

21 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

I didn't see the play, but if they called it incomplete acknowledged it was complete but upheld the ruling on the field, this is the rule they had to be using.  I copied this directly from the NFL rule book under the section on instant replay rulings.

ARTICLE 2. PLAYS INVOLVING POSSESSION.
Item 1. Completion of a Pass. Whether a pass was complete or incomplete.

(2) Incomplete Changed to Catch and Fumble. When a ruling of incomplete is changed to a catch and fumble, the ballwill be awarded at the spot of recovery to the team that recovers the ball in the immediate continuing action. If there is no clear recovery, the ruling on the field stands even if the ball clearly was caught.

I've actually seen that once before. You guys tell me if the Panthers recovered "in the immediate continuing action" because I can't find the play anywhere online. 

The problem is it potentially puts the screws to the team twice, like it did yesterday.  I guess they figure calling it incomplete pretty much wipes out everything, and I guess I understand the rationale if there is no clear recovery or the play had stopped and then some guy walks over and "recovers" it by picking it up to hand it to the official.  But then, you wind up taking the timeout away on the challenge, even though what was challenged was correct: it was a catch and fumble. 

They at least need to clarify the timeout piece of that.  It is something straight out of Catch-22.

 

https://www.derp/2019/9/9/20856961/carolina-panthers-didnt-lose-to-los-angeles-rams-because-of-two-bad-calls-by-the-referees

 

Here's an article that talks about that call. My first reaction was that I thought it was an incomplete pass. After replay, I thought it was maybe a catch and fumble. Someone I was watching the game with thought Reynolds' knee was down. When I looked at the replay, I couldn't tell.

I think the ruling can be summed up like this: "it was a catch, but we couldn't tell if the knee was down, so we're not changing the call". It's confusing because we've literally never heard that, right?

But if you think about it, that situation probably comes up all the time on a fumble/non fumble review - the difference is, an official has never had to say "upon further review, we can't tell if the knee was down" - all they say is that the call stands, confirmed or overturned - if they ever can't tell, which I'm sure does happen - they just let the play stand as called - but in this instance, for whatever reason, the official felt the need to clarify in the extreme.

[Sgt Schultz]

2 minutes ago, Ramfan128 said:

 

https://www.derp/2019/9/9/20856961/carolina-panthers-didnt-lose-to-los-angeles-rams-because-of-two-bad-calls-by-the-referees

 

Here's an article that talks about that call. My first reaction was that I thought it was an incomplete pass. After replay, I thought it was maybe a catch and fumble. Someone I was watching the game with thought Reynolds' knee was down. When I looked at the replay, I couldn't tell.

I think the ruling can be summed up like this: "it was a catch, but we couldn't tell if the knee was down, so we're not changing the call". It's confusing because we've literally never heard that, right?

But if you think about it, that situation probably comes up all the time on a fumble/non fumble review - the difference is, an official has never had to say "upon further review, we can't tell if the knee was down" - all they say is that the call stands, confirmed or overturned - if they ever can't tell, which I'm sure does happen - they just let the play stand as called - but in this instance, for whatever reason, the official felt the need to clarify in the extreme.

Sounds like the same theory.  If they correct the catch/no catch, they wind up with a fiasco.  In the rule book, they talk about a fumble with no clear recovery.  In this case, they could not tell whether it was a fumble, which is about the same outcome.  In basketball, it would be a jump ball (or alternating possession, but that is another story).

The goal of instant replay is to make the outcome correct.  Usually, that is looking at one single thing, often the end of a play.  In these cases, the correct call extends the play and leads to an unknown outcome (aka a fiasco).  That seems to be the basis of the rule and the similar call yesterday.

I think the time I saw it previously, the official explained that it was a catch, and (in that case) a fumble with no clear recovery.  So "by rule" it is an incomplete pass.

I work with a guy like Hochuli.  He feels the need to clarify everything.  And he starts it with "let's be clear."  And just like this case, what follows is anything but clarity.

[BIGH2001]

I'm just as pissed as the next guy about this but we can't really complain about the Rams officiating bias when we reveled in the Saints missed PI call last year.