My bad - then it must have been Baltimore's fans serenading the officials. They were awful both directions that game.
(Unless I am thinking of an entirely different game - which is quite possible)
The Nation's Tears: Volume II
- Thread starter jmcc5400
- Start date
- Status
(Unless I am thinking of an entirely different game - which is quite possible)
Well, they didn't actually win the Super Bowl that year. And it involved Jack Tatum, so I'm ok with the Immaculate Reception, because f*(# Jack Tatum.
That night was a travesty of officiating. I was hoping that would be enough to get the real officials back, and then the Fail Mary took place on the very next night, putting an end to the scab refs.
Understood, but that catch is what's pointed to as the start of the 1970's dynasty.
I was at that game -- sitting way up and behind the goalpost the last field goal went over. (though I can't say I saw it well, one way or the other). I'm still surprised I got out of the stadium without getting into a fight.
This thread often goes from funny genuine salty tears to complaining about boilerplate athletic cliches that every athlete will say after a tough loss.
Yeah I was angry at the Fail Mary because it drew attention away from what was basically the worst reffed game I've ever seen in any sport.
I can't tell if this is salty tears, or a boilerplate cliche about entitled fans after a tough win,
If I weren’t a Patriots fan, Brady’s high pitched voice would drive me up the wall but since he’s our GOAT, I can’t get enough.
Well, you know that he really means it. Nobody puts on a voice like that as part of an act.
Over the past couple of days, several football fans (Washington, Ravens, and yes, Steelers) that I regularly interact with have stated "I don't know what a catch is" or something similar. At this point, I call bullshit on that line. If you don't know what an NFL catch is by now, you aren't paying attention or you're willfully ignorant.
And most likely, you hate the Patriots.
And most likely, you hate the Patriots.
Last edited:
Just listening to the Cover 2 podcast with Don (EDIT) Banks and Nick Stevens and they had on a former official, ho now works on the espn broadcast. He was saying that he knew it was trouble for Pitt when he saw it, and basically got a little exasperated at all the I DONT KNOW WHAT A CATCH IS stuff he constantly hears now. Yes, it's an issue, but it's pretty simple for receivers to remember and understand: Just hold onto the ball to complete the catch and make sure you do when you hit the ground.
Last edited:
Yeah, how hard is it to understand "Hey, WRs--basically at no point EVER do you want the ball to touch the ground. Handle that and every situation should be okay."
(Yes, I know that it can touch the ground, as long as there's control, etc., the point is if you work on never letting it get to that point, you're not at risk for this stuff.)
And this "I don't know what a catch is"---THERE'S A GOD DAMNED PICTURE OF THE BALL LITERALLY ON THE TURF.
(Yes, I know that it can touch the ground, as long as there's control, etc., the point is if you work on never letting it get to that point, you're not at risk for this stuff.)
And this "I don't know what a catch is"---THERE'S A GOD DAMNED PICTURE OF THE BALL LITERALLY ON THE TURF.
BUT HE CAUGHT IT BEFORE THAT!!!!!!!!!!
These are the people that don't read the instructions on assembling their grill and wonder why they have a bunch of important looking pieces left over.
I think some folks don't try to understand the rule, whereas others understand it but - in what appears to be an odd slip in communication - say 'I don't understand what a catch is anymore' out of frustration with the rule, replay or both.
I have yet to hear any of them offer an alternative rule that would liberalize the catch definition and can be consistently applied by officials. They also don't explicitly acknowledge/accept that a more liberal catch rule will result in more fumbles, which you really need to account for if you're serious about fixing it. Are they ok with that? Are they ok with a more subjective standard for possession that will be inconsistently applied by the league office during replay review? These questions are seldom answered, and 'if everyone in the bar thinks it is a catch, it is a catch' seems to pass as a legitimate response, so I'm not holding my breath for a more intelligent media discussion anytime soon.
The most considered case I've heard was from Pereira, who floated the idea of making catch calls non-reviewable and accepting that you'll lose precision in on-field calls for better (if you can't see the ball hit the ground live then it's too marginal to result in a non-catch) AND worse (some clearcut mistakes that wouldn't present any controversy if overturned). I honestly don't have a strong view of which rule or replay approach is best in a vacuum, but I do think it's not great to have an otherwise fabulous game largely defined by a single play/rule.
I have yet to hear any of them offer an alternative rule that would liberalize the catch definition and can be consistently applied by officials. They also don't explicitly acknowledge/accept that a more liberal catch rule will result in more fumbles, which you really need to account for if you're serious about fixing it. Are they ok with that? Are they ok with a more subjective standard for possession that will be inconsistently applied by the league office during replay review? These questions are seldom answered, and 'if everyone in the bar thinks it is a catch, it is a catch' seems to pass as a legitimate response, so I'm not holding my breath for a more intelligent media discussion anytime soon.
The most considered case I've heard was from Pereira, who floated the idea of making catch calls non-reviewable and accepting that you'll lose precision in on-field calls for better (if you can't see the ball hit the ground live then it's too marginal to result in a non-catch) AND worse (some clearcut mistakes that wouldn't present any controversy if overturned). I honestly don't have a strong view of which rule or replay approach is best in a vacuum, but I do think it's not great to have an otherwise fabulous game largely defined by a single play/rule.
Yeah, I mentioned it in another thread but is the standard for a catch materially different than in baseball? If you dive and ball pops out and touches the ground, no catch. I've never heard anyone say they don't know what a catch is in baseball. It's such a stupid premise but it makes planning the talk shows easy so I guess it's not going away.
I think perhaps you could change the surviving the ground rule to standardize a catch in all circumstances. Get rid of the "becoming a runner" for upright runners and go back to a football move (which I would call manifesting control) type of idea. You must secure the ball with two feet or a body part in bounds and then do enough to demonstrate possession -- tuck the ball to your body, turn up field, extend the ball to gain more yardage, etc. The surviving the ground rule is based on the fact that falling receivers typically do not have the opportunity to demonstrate possession. But some do, like Dez or James in the Steelers game. If a player going to ground can manifest control in the same way that an upright runner can, then make it a catch. I think one could define going to ground football moves with some precision.
Of course, the surviving the ground rule is easier to call and my proposal is not really an improvement other than it will in some cases appeal to the "I know it when I see it" crowd.
And the first time an untouched receiver going to ground rolls over and then loses the ball and it is ruled a fumble, talk radio will probably go ballistic.
There's some ambiguity/judgement call on a catch followed by a throw attempt. A standard fly ball play is over once the caught is made, or there's a really clear distinction between the catch and a subsequent throw (i.e.the ball is clearly in control in the throwing hand). But sometimes there's a catch, and then an attempt to throw, and the ball comes loose. What constitutes "the catch" then? Sometimes it's not clear, and the umps call it one way or another: "catch was made, and then he subsequently dropped the ball" or "he tried to make the transfer too fast, and didn't actually catch it".
I mean, I essentially agree with your basic premise, but there's some ambiguity in the baseball thing too (although surviving the ground is not one of them, it's true)
So, ways to manifest control:
- tuck the ball
- turn upfield
-extend the ball to turn upfield OR survive the fall
It's really almost the same thing. The question would end up being: what's a more definitive "football move": extending, or surviving the ground?- turn upfield
-extend the ball to turn upfield OR survive the fall
Changes probably aren't needed in the existing rule, but rather just time for it to sink into the minds of players and fans. We are all used to "great catch, but did he get two feet in bounds" scenarios on the sidelines. With time, can we all get accustomed to "great catch, but did he control the ball all the way to the ground" scenarios?
surviving the ground isn't a matter of a football move, it's a matter of completing the catch. If I lay out for a baseball, it's in my glove, and then I hit the ground and it pops out, it was never a catch for purposes of the game. Just ask Dottie Hinson.
Right now, before anything else matters, you have to complete the catch. Which means you need control, you need to be in-bounds, and if you're falling down as you catch it, you need to keep control all the way through. They instituted that rule, I believe, so that losing the ball when you dive is not automatically a catch-and-fumble. Of course, it means that control+in-bounds isn't enough right at the boundary, which I think is a bit lame, and control+break-the-plane isn't enough at the goal line, which a lot of people seem to think is a bit lame. But it needs to either be a catch-and-fumble or an incomplete.
I've been putting it to Steelers fans this way lately: if James had done exactly what he did, except when he hit the ground the ball didn't just roll underneath his hands but squirted out from him and was recovered in the end zone by the Patriots, would they have expected the ruling to be incomplete, or catch-and-fumble? Incomplete, obviously - "he never really had it". The whole reason that rule is there is so that wouldn't be a fumble.
Of course it can. If you have the ball in your right hand, and stumble and put the ball down to break your fall, and it squirts out, it's a fumble. That old saw mischaracterization of the rule really just means once your body is down by contact, you can no longer fumble. Which is self-evident.
Right, I was not talking about the "right now" rule.
I was replying to DDB's "go back to 'football move' rule" post.
I'm just saying that one way to satisfy someones desire for "football move" to be the standard, just consider "surviving the ground" to be a required "football move".
Your hypothetical is quite clear, and I think is a great way to frame the description of the current rule and why it's the rule.
But if you changed that rule to "lunge as football move" it results in a touchdown. The offense can't fumble the ball while in the endzone. If he had possession enough to fumble it, and he was in the endzone, it's a touchdown.
Or rather, once you are contacted by a defensive player, the next time you hit the ground you are instantly down, and thus the ground can't cause a fumble.
Semantics, I know. it's not "once you are down by contact" it's "because you are down by contact".
But yeah, if totally untouched and you just stumble and fall and hit the ground and the ball comes lose, that should be live.
If there is a semantic distinction there, I'm not sure you've explained it. And it's not just stumbling untouched where the ground can cause a fumble. As I noted above, even if you are touched, you are not down when just your hand (or the ball) hits the ground. So I'll stick with once you are down by contact you can no longer fumble.
I'm not sure that's true. I think if a player is contacted and the first thing that hits the ground is his hand and the ball, it's not a fumble. A ball carrier is running and the defensive player cuts his legs, the runner flips over in the air and the ball and his hand hits the turf first, the ball squirts out, no fumble.
Ah ok I see what you mean, yeah.
Is it? Now I've switched from my previous position, but I'm still not certain.
This suggests that your scenario (and Needler's) should be a fumble.
Last edited:
On the basis of what rule do you think that? (Dead ball rule can be found at Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1.)
I see, so you're proposing that you can become a runner by lunging towards the endzone after getting control, even if you don't survive the ground. So under this, James would have been ruled to have fumbled in the endzone, but it wouldn't have mattered because as a runner he would have crossed the plane and already scored, ending the play.
That would be an extremely specific adjustment to the rules in reaction to this specific play, but it seems plausible. How would this other play have been ruled under your proposal?
edit: fumble into the endzone for a touchback, GB ball, I'd wager.
Last edited:
I think you're cutting it too fine here.
If it's his hand and just his hand it is a fumble. If it's his wrist/forearm, etc then he is down.
And the ball isn't part of his body, so that's not part of this at all.
Not my proposal...DDB's proposal. I was just talking about the merits of it, not espousing it as my preferred solution.I see, so you're proposing that you can become a runner by lunging towards the endzone after getting control, even if you don't survive the ground. So under this, James would have been ruled to have fumbled in the endzone, but it wouldn't have mattered because as a runner he would have crossed the plane and already scored, ending the play.
That would be an extremely specific adjustment to the rules in reaction to this specific play, but it seems plausible. How would this other play have been ruled under your proposal?
I think, in that (DDB's) situation, your gif would be a fumble (looks like nose of the ball is 2" short of the plane")
Then there's a whole decision tree regarding where the ball ends up (in our out of bounds) who recovers, what down it is, endless loop of "this rule sucks too!"
etc.
I'm fine with a merger between "football move" and "surviving the ground". Since "football move" sticks in people's heads, just make a clarification: surviving the ground is the first football move that needs to be fulfilled.
Right, the ball isn't part of the body, so the ball doesn't contribute to being "down", so, I think then the rule says:
if it's his hand (probably wrist included, but not forearm...subjective decision) then he's not down: fumble.
if it's just the ball, no hand/arm, then he's absolutely still an active runner: fumble
if it's just the ball, no hand/arm, then he's absolutely still an active runner: fumble
Dez (nor the ball) never went out of bounds. He rolled over into the end zone and secured the ball. If you're calling that a fumble, then he would have recovered in the end zone for a touchdown.I see, so you're proposing that you can become a runner by lunging towards the endzone after getting control, even if you don't survive the ground. So under this, James would have been ruled to have fumbled in the endzone, but it wouldn't have mattered because as a runner he would have crossed the plane and already scored, ending the play.
That would be an extremely specific adjustment to the rules in reaction to this specific play, but it seems plausible. How would this other play have been ruled under your proposal?
edit: fumble into the endzone for a touchback, GB ball, I'd wager.
If you forward fumble and recover in the last two minutes, I think the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble. So since the ball did not go out of bounds and Dez recovered it, I think if you're calling that play a catch and fumble it would be Dallas ball on the 1/2 yard line.
That is not the rule. The fumbling player can always recover his own fumble. It's a touchdown.
True. A player holding the ball won’t land on his hand, it would be wrist or forearm, ergo down by contact.
not to split hairs but: per your previous example the hand can absolutely hit first:
The runner's fingers could be on the underside of the ball and the ball shoots out before any other ground contact, which would be a fumble.
You're being obnoxious. The quote you took issue with and bolded was "even if you are touched, you are not down when just your hand (or the ball) hits the ground." And that is a fact. And a runner absolutely can land with his hand (or wrist) hitting first. (The wrist hitting does not make you down; it's ABOVE the wrist, ie forearm or higher.)
Just leave the rule as it is; you have to survive the ground for it to be a catch.
As mentioned up thread, baseball's rule is similar; if you lose control of the ball when you hit the ground after making a circus catch, it's not a catch, ie, you did not survive the ground.
The whole reason for this nationwide four day shitshow is because it benefited the Patriots.
The most comical angle on this is the league/refs rigged the game for the Patriots; yeah, sure they did, the same league that suspended the face of the league for four games, fined the Patriots a million dollars and took away two draft picks is now rigging games for them.
The mind reels.
As mentioned up thread, baseball's rule is similar; if you lose control of the ball when you hit the ground after making a circus catch, it's not a catch, ie, you did not survive the ground.
The whole reason for this nationwide four day shitshow is because it benefited the Patriots.
The most comical angle on this is the league/refs rigged the game for the Patriots; yeah, sure they did, the same league that suspended the face of the league for four games, fined the Patriots a million dollars and took away two draft picks is now rigging games for them.
The mind reels.
Ah ok. Thanks.
Ed: if the DB touched him - can't tell if he did or didn't- would he be down by contact?
I'm pretty sure he catches Dez with his leg and Bryant's right forearm is down, then Dez, hypothetically, fumbles.
Last edited:
Right -- this was my proposal. To be clear, I'm not advocating it. I was just responding to how the rule could theoretically be changed to accommodate the crowd that is annoyed by the survive the ground rule. We could dispense with the survive the ground rule and simply have one definition for when a catch is complete, regardless of whether it's an upright runner or a runner going to ground. You'd go back to a football move concept, and you'd allow for receivers going to ground to establish possession without the need to survive the ground. They simply would need to do the same post possession type of act that an upright receiver must do (after the other conditions for a catch are met).I see, so you're proposing that you can become a runner by lunging towards the endzone after getting control, even if you don't survive the ground. So under this, James would have been ruled to have fumbled in the endzone, but it wouldn't have mattered because as a runner he would have crossed the plane and already scored, ending the play.
That would be an extremely specific adjustment to the rules in reaction to this specific play, but it seems plausible. How would this other play have been ruled under your proposal?
edit: fumble into the endzone for a touchback, GB ball, I'd wager.
The reality is that this would not happen too often. It's rare that a receiver on his way to the ground is able to perform an act manifesting his control, such as changing hands or trying to advance the football, or whatever. It would be solely for plays like the Dez play, or the James play. In the Dez gif, the catch would be complete when he, going to ground around the one yard line, attempts to move the ball toward the end zone by extending his left arm. Accordingly, the result of that play under what I'm suggesting, is catch and fumble. Had he been down by contact after the extension of the left arm, it would be a tackle at the one yard line notwithstanding the bobble. Had the ball gone through the end zone, it would be a touchback. In this play, it would be a fumble short of the goal line and a recovery in bounds for a TD.
Again, I am not advocating this rule. I'm fine with the surviving the ground rule. It's easier to call. Most players who are going to ground are not athletic enough to perform an act while doing so that would complete the catch. It would be truly reserved for the Dez and James like plays. Its only advantage is that a few times a year, it would enable the "I know it when I see it" crowd to STFU. But it would be harder to call. It also probably would have some other unintended consequences that nobody can figure, like resulting in a big fumble that the "I know it when I see it" crowd does not think is really a fumble.
In my proposal, it would depend on when he was touched. As I understand the tacking rules, it's a dead ball once you are touched while down, or touched on the way down, but only after possession. That is, you can only be tackled or forced down by contact, once you are a "runner." For example, if a pass is thrown to you, and the receiver whallops you, and you fall down, and the ball pops up in the air, and you catch it while you're on the ground, it's still a live play. You need to be touched post-catch or, if you can get up before being touched down, you need to be tackled again.
So, to decide whether he is down by contact, you have to decide at what point he completed the catch and thus became a runner. In my proposal, he completes the catch when he begins to extend the arm, so the question would be whether he is touched or forced down at or after that point.
- Status