Genuinely wondering about the fairness of the refs today.

[frankw]

12 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

Neither one of those were penalties. Learn the rules.

 

Runners don't get protected, and Sam was a runner. And Robby got hit with shoulder pads well within the strike zone. Sheesh.

 

Same with DJs TD drop. Some of you expect the Panthers to get every dang call. And go all ham when we don't.

 

[iamhubby1]

Just now, frankw said:

 

 

Nice rebuttal. About what I expected from you. 

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, iamhubby1 said:

 

You have to complete the catch. Which means when you go to the ground, you must maintain possession.

 

He did not make a "Football" move after the catch.

Watched a hundred similar TD catches over a lifetime of watching football. Don't ever recall a player making a catch like that being ruled incomplete when he still had the ball as he hits the ground. I watched the replay multiple times.  Both feet are clearly inbounds and there is no clear evidence he does not have control at any point before he hits the ground. Never seen that be ruled an incompletion. 

You say you must maintain possesion, but if you are on the ground out of bounds and had possession all the way down, exactly how @#%$ing long are you expected to lay there to prove you've "maintained possession"? When the play happens inbounds the moment the ball crosses the goal line in the possession of an offensive player it is a TD and anything afterwards is irrelevant. You cannot review the replay and say there is definitive evidence DJ did not have control of the ball before he hit the ground. Once he hits the ground it should be a TD, or you have an arbitrary and highly subjective rule.

I maintain it was a highly irregular initial ruling that flies in the face of anything I can recall having seen, and that upholding the call upon review was absurd. 

[iamhubby1]

5 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Watched a hundred similar TD catches over a lifetime of watching football. Don't ever recall a player making a catch like that being ruled incomplete when he still had the ball as he hits the ground. I watched the replay multiple times.  Both feet are clearly inbounds and there is no clear evidence he does not have control at any point before he hits the ground. Never seen that be ruled an incompletion. 

You say you must maintain possesion, but if you are on the ground out of bounds and had possession all the way down, exactly how @#%$ing long are you expected to lay there to prove you've "maintained possession"? When the play happens inbounds the moment the ball crosses the goal line in the possession of an offensive player it is a TD and anything afterwards is irrelevant. You cannot review the replay and say there is definitive evidence DJ did not have control of the ball before he hit the ground. Once he hits the ground it should be a TD, or you have an arbitrary and highly subjective rule.

I maintain it was a highly irregular initial ruling that flies in the face of anything I can recall having seen, and that upholding the call upon review was absurd. 

 

You  have maintain control after contacting the ground. I should have said that the first time. I just thought folks were aware of this.

[Harbingers]

2 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Watched a hundred similar TD catches over a lifetime of watching football. Don't ever recall a player making a catch like that being ruled incomplete when he still had the ball as he hits the ground. I watched the replay multiple times.  Both feet are clearly inbounds and there is no clear evidence he does not have control at any point before he hits the ground. Never seen that be ruled an incompletion. 

You say you must maintain possesion, but if you are on the ground out of bounds and had possession all the way down, exactly how @#%$ing long are you expected to lay there to prove you've "maintained possession"? When the play happens inbounds the moment the ball crosses the goal line in the possession of an offensive player it is a TD and anything afterwards is irrelevant. You cannot review the replay and say there is definitive evidence DJ did not have control of the ball before he hit the ground. Once he hits the ground it should be a TD, or you have an arbitrary and highly subjective rule.

I maintain it was a highly irregular initial ruling that flies in the face of anything I can recall having seen, and that upholding the call upon review was absurd. 

I can think of half a dozen times this rule came into our favor. You have to complete the catch Through the ground. Moore did not maintain possession through the ground. 

[Harbingers]

Just now, iamhubby1 said:

 

You  have maintain control after contacting the ground. I should have said that the first time. I just thought folks were aware of this.

Through the ground. Yes. 

[iamhubby1]

Just now, Harbingers said:

Through the ground. Yes. 

 

And it actually looked like DJ was already losing the ball before he hit the ground. Then the ball popped out. Which makes it an incomplete pass.

[OneBadCat]

22 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

In my entire history of watching football, I don't ever recall a similar play with a player going out of bounds and seeming to maintain control of the ball til he gets to the ground being initially rulled incomplete. 

Never. 

Not once.

They always call it a catch and then review it to see if it really was.

After watching the replay, it's even less defensible. Flat out bad call. Tell yourself whatever you want. I watched it multiple times. The initial call was completely inconsistent with all the football officiating I've ever seen, and the replay far from vindicated the officials call.

Sorry that post was meant for a reaction in the game day thread. When Ryan did or didn't fumble the ball.

No I agree with you DJ's pass should have been ruled a TD. I don't think the rule makes much sense. The catch was secured with 2 feet before he goes out of bounds. Whatever happens out of bounds shouldn't matter. 

Why can a player reach over the line and score then lose control of the ball, be granted a TD, yet a player catching a pass with 2 feet in bounds isn't an instant score.

[JawnyBlaze]

36 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

Neither one of those were penalties. Learn the rules.

 

Runners don't get protected, and Sam was a runner. And Robby got hit with shoulder pads well within the strike zone. Sheesh.

 

Same with DJs TD drop. Some of you expect the Panthers to get every dang call. And go all ham when we don't.

You are correct on all those example, but the refs were very one sided today even discounting those. The delay of game at the end of the game was one of the more ludicrous calls I’ve ever seen. Our defense should just grab the ball and play keep away from now on and force delays of game on our opponents every play. 

[1of10Charnatives]

1 minute ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

You  have maintain control after contacting the ground. I should have said that the first time. I just thought folks were aware of this.

If this is the case, I don't honestly remember it ever being invoked when watching other games. I have seen plenty of guys lose the ball on the way down, but I could swear I've seen plenty of guys catch TD passes as they go out of bounds, fall out of bounds, ball pops lose AFTER they hit the ground, and it's still considered a TD. 

Honest question: When a receiver catches the ball in the endzone, not going out of bounds, exactly how long must he maintain possession of the ball before it is a TD? Til both feet are down right?

My understanding has always been this is immediately a TD and whatever happens afterwards is irrelevant. A defensive player cannot knock the ball loose after the fact. And this whole notion of a "football move" I've heard this term batted around for years without anyone ever being able to satisfactorily describe it. It sounds like a load of hogwash the league has concocted to give their officials room to call things inconsistently and hide behind a vaguely defined term.

It sounds very much like what you are describing is one rule for what amounts to a TD when a player is in the endzone not going out of bounds, and a different standard for when he is.

[1of10Charnatives]

5 minutes ago, OneBadCat said:

The catch was secured with 2 feet before he goes out of bounds. Whatever happens out of bounds shouldn't matter. 

Why can a player reach over the line and score then lose control of the ball, be granted a TD, yet a player catching a pass with 2 feet in bounds isn't an instant score.

BINGO.

THIS.

[JawnyBlaze]

1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

If this is the case, I don't honestly remember it ever being invoked when watching other games. I have seen plenty of guys lose the ball on the way down, but I could swear I've seen plenty of guys catch TD passes as they go out of bounds, fall out of bounds, ball pops lose AFTER they hit the ground, and it's still considered a TD. 

Honest question: When a receiver catches the ball in the endzone, not going out of bounds, exactly how long must he maintain possession of the ball before it is a TD? Til both feet are down right?

My understanding has always been this is immediately a TD and whatever happens afterwards is irrelevant. A defensive player cannot knock the ball loose after the fact. And this whole notion of a "football move" I've heard this term batted around for years without anyone ever being able to satisfactorily describe it. It sounds like a load of hogwash the league has concocted to give their officials room to call things inconsistently and hide behind a vaguely defined term.

It sounds very much like what you are describing is one rule for what amounts to a TD when a player is in the endzone not going out of bounds, and a different standard for when he is.

If they lose the ball when they hit the ground they had to have “made a football move” in the end zone with possession. Jump, catch, hit the ground has required not losing the ball for over a decade. 

[1of10Charnatives]

10 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

And it actually looked like DJ was already losing the ball before he hit the ground. Then the ball popped out. Which makes it an incomplete pass.

Disagree. I watched that play multiple times and never saw any hint he was losing control before he hit the ground. Gathering the ball to his body sure, losing control, no. A player is perfectly allowed to gather the ball to his body as part of maintaining control. If he is not, the rule is absurd in the extreme.

[iamhubby1]

1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

If this is the case, I don't honestly remember it ever being invoked when watching other games. I have seen plenty of guys lose the ball on the way down, but I could swear I've seen plenty of guys catch TD passes as they go out of bounds, fall out of bounds, ball pops lose AFTER they hit the ground, and it's still considered a TD. 

Honest question: When a receiver catches the ball in the endzone, not going out of bounds, exactly how long must he maintain possession of the ball before it is a TD? Til both feet are down right?

My understanding has always been this is immediately a TD and whatever happens afterwards is irrelevant. A defensive player cannot knock the ball loose after the fact. And this whole notion of a "football move" I've heard this term batted around for years without anyone ever being able to satisfactorily describe it. It sounds like a load of hogwash the league has concocted to give their officials room to call things inconsistently and hide behind a vaguely defined term.

It sounds very much like what you are describing is one rule for what amounts to a TD when a player is in the endzone not going out of bounds, and a different standard for when he is.

 

If you make a "Football Move" turn to run, take a step, anything really. It is considered a catch.

 

In the End Zone. If you catch a ball, and take a step or two. Then go out of bounds. You are allowed to drop the ball. You had possession, and control. That is all you need in the EZ. You made a football move. 

 

DJ got 2 feet down, but did not control the ball through contact with the ground. Hence, incomplete. He made no football move.