|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 17, 2017 20:40:12 GMT -5
Well at least Riveron has been consistent with his calls on those plays where the ball moves. But to me, as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground, the receiver still has possession of the ball even if it moves a bit. I wonder if the rule book defines possession or is this simply Riveron's interpretation. Interestingly enough, Corrente was the referee in the game in New Jersey when Safarian-Jenkins had that supposed fumble which set off all this nonsense about what is a fumble. Of course, I completely understand that the pass receiver must complete the action of the catch to the ground and if the ball had hit the ground, fine. But quite frankly, this has become almost a joke (and no, I didn't care who won.) Consistent?  One was called a TD...one was not. I'm trying to be fair here...but if someone else sees indisputable evidence that his hand was NOT under the ball I'd like to see where it is. |
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Dec 17, 2017 21:24:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by melkaman8200 on Dec 17, 2017 21:36:07 GMT -5
This was a close one, and the ruling of incomplete was probably pretty close to being the right call. Personally, I don't think there was enough to overturn the call. If it had been ruled incomplete originally, then so be it, but having been ruled a touchdown, I think it should have stayed that way.
I know some want to hang Riveron for some of these overturns, which is unfair, but it does go back to something I was worried about when centralized replay was first suggested: Too many people thought that it would be a cure-all and lead to more perfection/consistency, but it hasn't. The centralized replay people (Riveron or whoever) will have all the same frailties as the on-field referee doing it, albeit without the pressure of being on-site and maybe subconsciously affected by the crowd.
At any rate, our bellyaching will change little (although it is kind of fun to do, I will admit), it is what it is. All we can do is take this and move on and hope that the NFL will continue to improve the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by sullim4 on Dec 17, 2017 21:39:49 GMT -5
One was called a TD...one was not. I'm trying to be fair here...but if someone else sees indisputable evidence that his hand was NOT under the ball I'd like to see where it is. Bingo. This is the problem I have with the call. It feels like the standard is no longer incontrovertible video evidence, but rather, preponderance of the evidence. It is more likely that the ball hit? Sure. But it's not indisputable. It feels like certain teams play by different sets of rules, i.e. what you pointed out in the image you posted. |
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 17, 2017 21:43:30 GMT -5
I think what is and what isn't a catch has been so codified, it does not leave any judgement to the official, or the replay office for that matter....
|
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 17, 2017 21:46:34 GMT -5
I think what is and what isn't a catch has been so codified, it does not leave any judgement to the official, or the replay office for that matter.... Then what took so long for the review? If the ball hit the ground it hit the ground. I just don't think it was nearly indisputable enough to overturn. That throws out the "let 'em play" non calls...until they called a couple on one team and not the other. All I want is consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by cj on Dec 17, 2017 22:41:13 GMT -5
I just saw the replay one more time. He caught the ball and his knee hits down. That completes the catch as he had possession to the ground. Since he wasn't touched on the ground, he more or less becomes a runner. As a runner, the instant the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, it is a touchdown. The subsequent movement of the ball or even if he dropped it, which he didn't, the only possible call, as correctly called on the field is a TOUCHDOWN. Riveron can talk all he wants about completing the process of the catch. Very bad call even if the claim the rule is the rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 17, 2017 23:42:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 17, 2017 23:46:34 GMT -5
Adrian Hill nails the pylon play at the end of SNF.
|
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 17, 2017 23:48:54 GMT -5
And Marshawn Lynch with a well-deserved flag.
|
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 18, 2017 0:08:00 GMT -5
I just saw the replay one more time. He caught the ball and his knee hits down. That completes the catch as he had possession to the ground. Since he wasn't touched on the ground, he more or less becomes a runner. As a runner, the instant the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, it is a touchdown. The subsequent movement of the ball or even if he dropped it, which he didn't, the only possible call, as correctly called on the field is a TOUCHDOWN. Riveron can talk all he wants about completing the process of the catch. Very bad call even if the claim the rule is the rule. @mikepereira 5h5 hours ago More People are saying a runner breaking the plane causes the ball to become dead…which is true. BUT the receiver does not become a runner until he completes the process of the catch. TOTALLY DIFFERENT |
|
|
|
Post by cj on Dec 18, 2017 6:29:02 GMT -5
I just saw the replay one more time. He caught the ball and his knee hits down. That completes the catch as he had possession to the ground. Since he wasn't touched on the ground, he more or less becomes a runner. As a runner, the instant the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, it is a touchdown. The subsequent movement of the ball or even if he dropped it, which he didn't, the only possible call, as correctly called on the field is a TOUCHDOWN. Riveron can talk all he wants about completing the process of the catch. Very bad call even if the claim the rule is the rule. @mikepereira 5h5 hours ago More People are saying a runner breaking the plane causes the ball to become dead…which is true. BUT the receiver does not become a runner until he completes the process of the catch. TOTALLY DIFFERENT Understood Fred but in this case, the receiver was down so he had completed the process of the catch, at least from what I think I see. Then, since he was not touched, then there and only there he lunged for the goal line and the ball broke the plane of the goal line after he became a runner. At least, that's what I think I saw! |
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 18, 2017 10:23:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cj on Dec 18, 2017 13:13:54 GMT -5
Here's my feeling on this for whatever it means. Steratore claims he had decided the qb had made the first down and was using the index card to verify his judgment.
But I've said this before. How do we know the chains were exactly set to the exact centimeter at the start of the series? And of course, spotting the ball at the end of each play is far from exact. They officials do the best they can. A solution has to exist in 2017 to make this more accurate. I know some of you disagree about the use of technology for things such as this in the modern world.
|
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 18, 2017 14:09:56 GMT -5
The use of technology is causing many of these catches, that would have been catches 20-years ago in analog TV, to be incomplete now.
As far as the measurement, the line to gain was the big stripe. The ball was on the big stripe. Bang it a first down and move on. I don't know why Gene brought in the chains.
|
|
