|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 6, 2011 0:16:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cj on Dec 6, 2011 7:47:05 GMT -5
Interesting.....he did the Jennings call and he agrees with what I saw...Jennings established control with one had for a brief instant which brings up one of the enigmas in football and is always causing problem...the most important play in football is a touchdown...as soon as a touchdown is scored, the ball is dead....any place else the ball is not dead until it goes out of bounds or a a pass in incomplete or a runner is down. Anywhere else on the field of play, if you want to be technical, the Jennings play could be construed as a reception and a fumble but the NFL doesn't want turnovers on plays like that so they generally rule such plays as incomplete forward passes but in the end zone, once the offensive team has possession, the ball is dead and it's a touchdown. Periera agreed the replay was inconclusive as we lack 3 dimensional ability even on a HD picture and that the call could have gone either way. Therefore his point is, and he did it with several other plays, is you stick with the call on the field and don't reverse.
|
|
|
|
Post by teo on Dec 6, 2011 16:37:17 GMT -5
Why Jennings play was called as a catch and Calvin Johnson's at Chicago and Louis Murphy vs. San Diego (the past seasons ) not?
|
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Dec 7, 2011 10:29:46 GMT -5
Why Jennings play was called as a catch and Calvin Johnson's at Chicago and Louis Murphy vs. San Diego (the past seasons ) not? Jennings did not go to the ground, so therefore it is not equivalent to the other two examples where the player went to the ground. If all three of those plays happened in the field of play, instead of the end zone, Jennings would have been ruled to have fumbled, but Johnson and Murphy would be incomplete. It makes sense that way, in that Jennings caused the ball to become loose, so it should be a fumble. And you can't have two different catch definitions for the end zone and the field of play. The only thing that saved Jennings was that the touchdown was declared when he secured the ball and completed the process of the catch. A ball carrier cannot be ruled to have fumbled the ball in the opponent's end zone. |
|
|
|
Post by cj on Dec 7, 2011 20:10:23 GMT -5
Why Jennings play was called as a catch and Calvin Johnson's at Chicago and Louis Murphy vs. San Diego (the past seasons ) not? Jennings did not go to the ground, so therefore it is not equivalent to the other two examples where the player went to the ground. If all three of those plays happened in the field of play, instead of the end zone, Jennings would have been ruled to have fumbled, but Johnson and Murphy would be incomplete. It makes sense that way, in that Jennings caused the ball to become loose, so it should be a fumble. And you can't have two different catch definitions for the end zone and the field of play. The only thing that saved Jennings was that the touchdown was declared when he secured the ball and completed the process of the catch. A ball carrier cannot be ruled to have fumbled the ball in the opponent's end zone. Great explanation. It's too bad that the new Director of Officials no longer explains these calls and these nuances but it does go back to the fact that when a ball is in touch, namely in possession of either team in the end zone, the ball is dead at the instant this occurs. Whether it's a touchdown, touchback or safety depeds on which teams has possession and how the ball got into the end zone. The only thing I might disagree with you and it goes back to when MP did Official Review, if the Jennings play had occurred in the field of play, while you would think it would be handled the same way, the NFL wants officials to "err" on the side of calling such plays incomplete passes to prevent cheap turnovers. Such a play occurred in the Jet-San Diego game two years ago when Boger overturned a call of reception and fumble and changed it to incomplete pass saying possession had not been established long enough......it was a tough close call but I think they got it right. |
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Dec 8, 2011 10:11:37 GMT -5
Such a play occurred in the Jet-San Diego game two years ago when Boger overturned a call of reception and fumble and changed it to incomplete pass saying possession had not been established long enough......it was a tough close call but I think they got it right. That was one of the reasons they updated the rule. Here's Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, with the 2011 additions shown in red: A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. [/color] Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.[/i] If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch. Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. 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 throughout the process of contacting 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.[/blockquote] |
|
