TallskiWallski83 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Ok so I am still having a hard time grasping how the hell Marquis Goodwins catch was overruled as an incomplete pass. If you watched the NE vs Pitt game today there was a play that occured that makes everything all the more confusing. The highlight starts at 1:16. http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2013110309/2013/REG9/steelers@patriots#menu=highlights&tab=recap How could Goodwins play get called as an incomplete pass when he maintained full position throughout 95% of of his fall and slide, while Ridley caught a ball..made no football move, had the ball knocked out of his hands...and somehow its ruled a fumble. Throw in Calvin Johnsons one handed catch that got knocked down as he falls to the ground seen here: nd I ask myself...what the hell is a "catch" in the NFL???!?! Sometimes i feel like the refs dont even know... which leads me to conclude that if it looks like a catch to the fans at home watching on tv...it probably is...or isnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 My question about that is why is when the closest guy makes a call (he said complete) and then the further away guy says no such and such happened, they always defer to the further away guy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan714 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 The thing about that catch is he got tackled came down with the ball, bounced off the turf, still had the ball and then it got knocked out. I have no idea what all the way to the ground means anymore if that was upheld on replay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
run dat back Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 This whole "catch/not a catch" thing is the biggest thing that turns me off of watching football. Second is the constant flags on every other play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) I have no idea. The NFL seems to think that if a ball shifts around a little bit that its magically not a catch. How did the ball get plucked from the air and remain in his hands for 100% of the time afterwards without him loosing it then? If it bounced off the ground, out of his hands, and he had to re-catch it, then sure - incomplete. But he never lost it!!!!! If he was palming the ball, and it hit the ground, and his pinky finger slips off, the NFL thinks its not a catch. Only in the NFL's cockamamie rulebook is that not considered a catch. In every of walk of life - that is indisputably a catch. And the catch-fumble of Goodwins, do you know how many times it is called the opposite way? It happened to us earlier this year - Searcy I think caused the fumble or picked it up. It was the EXACT same play - but ruled incomplete. I remember a game against GB years ago where Ahman Green caught the ball, switched hands, stiff armed, and it was still called incomplete. The NFL seriously needs to re-write there 'what defines a catch' rule because honestly it is total and complete BS. And while I am on it - how about that phantom block in the back call!!! On the jumbotron, it looked like the guy dove to make a tackle, and he didn't get pushed at all. He didn't even fall over until after he missed the tackle Edited November 4, 2013 by peterpan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PO'14 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 One thing I do know,,,this is not a catch and todays wasn't either...I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ANYMORE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) My question about that is why is when the closest guy makes a call (he said complete) and then the further away guy says no such and such happened, they always defer to the further away guy?? I think because the further guy is unlikely to chime in unless he thinks he sees something definitive. Especially if the closest rules catch, it seems logical that at a different angle a guy could see a bobble and chime in only in that case. I have no idea. The NFL seems to think that if a ball shifts around a little bit that its magically not a catch. How did the ball get plucked from the air and remain in his hands for 100% of the time afterwards without him loosing it then? And the catch-fumble of Goodwins, do you know how many times it is called the opposite way? It happened to us earlier this year - Searcy I think cause the fumble or picked it up. It was the EXACT same play - but ruled incomplete. I remember a game against GB years ago where Ahman Green caught the ball, switched hands, stiff armed, and it was still called incomplete. The NFL seriously needs to re-write there 'what defines a catch' rule because honestly it is total and complete BS. I think many don't understand how incredibly hard it is to write a "simple" rule on catches. You have just an infinite number of contingencies it has to cover. I think you'd be hardpressed to find a harder split second action to define across any sport due to the wide range of actions/reactions/motions/etc... it has to cover. This thread happens regularly, yet no one has an answer to "ok, so what should it be?" Edited November 4, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I think because the further guy is unlikely to chime in unless he thinks he sees something definitive. Especially if the closest rules catch, it seems logical that at a different angle a guy could see a bobble and chime in only in that case. I think many don't understand how incredibly hard it is to write a "simple" rule on catches. You have just an infinite number of contingencies it has to cover. I think you'd be hardpressed to find a harder split second action to define across any sport due to the wide range of actions/reactions/motions/etc... it has to cover. You're probably right..........But, if the roles were reversed today, they would have upheld the catch and not reversed that either............And, I'd like once for Ref #1 to say buzz off, I know what I saw! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 "Well the fans are boo'ing but [completion of process buzzwords, blah blah]". OK be more condescending Deirdorf, as if every red blooded football fan doesn't remember that Calvin Johnson play & the explanation. I would like to ask him if he remembers the Lance Moore 2pt conversion in the Super Bowl that same year, which was ruled a catch. I'm sure he doesn't. As mentioned above and by Marrone, it sure looked like he still had the ball after the first bounce off the turf, which in my book is "completing the proccess". But I guess it's sorta like holding - it's just insanely subjective even though the league will pretend otherwise. I mean does it actually say anywhere in the rule book exactly how long you need to hold the ball after hitting the ground? Did the Tuck rule ever specify how long you needed to complete the tucking motion before fumbling for the fumble to be negated? I mean sorry for the Mike Schopp rant but he's right that the sport is maddeningly stupid sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 That catch is a catch for a more important team in the NFL. When you are irrelevant you don't get that call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djp14150 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 This was a catch if you need to be consistent throughout the league. If this wasnt a catch then TJs fumble wasnt a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffmonster Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 This was a catch if you need to be consistent throughout the league. If this wasnt a catch then TJs fumble wasnt a catch. That one confused me more that it wasn't sent to the booth. Not worth another look? As noted by the OP that is the exact same play in the Baltimore game right before halftime that was ruled incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) It was NOT a catch. At no point did he have full control of the ball. The ball was moving and not controlled all the way til the end where it popped out. You guys want to use a frame by frame analysis, but the ball never stopped moving. He did not demonstrate control of the ball at any point as it was loose the whole way through. What I find interesting is that if that was a chiefs player all of you would be freaking out screaming it's not a catch of it had been ruled a catch. The refs got this one right Edited November 4, 2013 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 That one confused me more that it wasn't sent to the booth. Not worth another look? As noted by the OP that is the exact same play in the Baltimore game right before halftime that was ruled incomplete. As noted earlier the smaller market team always gets screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 It was NOT a catch. At no point did he have full control of the ball. The ball was moving and not controlled all the way til the end where it popped out. You guys want to use a frame by frame analysis, but the ball never stopped moving. He did not demonstrate control of the ball at any point as it was loose the whole way through Yes it did....watch again. Tony Dungy said the play was over when the defender knocked it out. I agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) Yes it did....watch again. Tony Dungy said the play was over when the defender knocked it out. I agree with him. No it did not. Watching in slow motion warps the perception. He did not have it stop moving at all, watched it many times. I agree with the call given it was ruled incomplete on the field and the ball was moving and came out. I would bet everything I have in life and will ever have that if that was a chiefs player and it was ruled a catch, every single one of you would be freaking out about how we got screwed and it was not a catch. Edited November 4, 2013 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) Yes it did....watch again. Tony Dungy said the play was over when the defender knocked it out. I agree with him. It's real close, and a judgement call with regards to when Goodwin completes his fall. While I agreed that it was complete (under the question "at what point can a defender no longer make a play to knock a ball out?") Honestly, I'd be curious if there's some sort of example in the rule book with regards to controlling through the fall. Does it end when he stops moving/starts to get up (whichever comes first) or what. I've heard the terminology before but not the textbook for of goals as this is about as late as I've seen the ball come out. Normally it's the initial contact with the ground that jars it. Edited November 4, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 No it did not. Watching in slow motion warps the perception. He did not have it stop moving at all, watched it many times. I agree with the call given it was ruled incomplete on the field and the ball was moving and came out. I would bet everything I have in life and will ever have that if that was a chiefs player and it was ruled a catch, every single one of you would be freaking out about how we got screwed and it was not a catch. Wow I must have watched a different video than you 20+ times then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 He had control when he hit the ground and at that point he was down by contract: play over. What happened after the play was over shouldn't matter. That was a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) He had control when he hit the ground and at that point he was down by contract: play over. What happened after the play was over shouldn't matter. That was a catch. That's what dungy said as well. Different than if he was going to ground own his own. Edited November 4, 2013 by thebug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 it was a catch, just because he wasn't holding it on his chest doesn't mean he didn't control it, refs are tools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSBill Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 and just made the same call on the Houston Indy game, he had the ball all the way out of bounce, then loses it, and yet its incomplete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadOTC Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 After what I just saw on that Andre Johnson catch challenge, I have no idea what a catch is anymore. What is up with this crazy week in the NFL?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Same exact play just happened in the Texans - Colts game. Johnson had a catch when he went out of bounds. He was sliding on his back with a player pulling at it; tried to adjust and lost it. Well after he was down and out of bounds - was a catch. The NFL has too many rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Catch/NoCatch Alert: Houston vs. Colts game - Andre Johnson ruled catch on field. Challenge by Pagano. Overruled. Refs said he lost control of the ball when he was on the ground. The ball was swiped out by the CB after he fell out of bounds. Collingsworth hit it spot on by saying "when does the play end?" Very similar to Goodwin. LOL...three of us just posted the same thing. Good job fellas. We should be in the refs booth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Wow I must have watched a different video than you 20+ times then. No offense, but if think for one second you and everyone in this board would not be freaking out and proclaiming it was not a catch if that was a chiefs player and it was ruled a catch then you are either lying or delusional. The ball is shifting to different parts of his body through the play and does not demonstrate full control. Had it been ruled a catch on the field, then maybe it stands. But no way was there anything conclusive on that close call to overturn that call IMO and no matter how I wanted it to be a catch did I think it was conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazzu Bill Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Anyone else secretly hoping refs ruled Johnson's grab a completion in order to supply more rant material? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 After what I just saw on that Andre Johnson catch challenge, I have no idea what a catch is anymore. What is up with this crazy week in the NFL?? Do you really have no idea what a catch is, or is it simply that you aren't sure in a handful of specific and complex examples you aren't sure quite where the line falls? Was it florio that coined the phrase "I don't know what a catch is?" I remember someone did after the Calvin Johnson incident and now everybody uses it on close calls since it seems like it was a catch, just because he wasn't holding it on his chest doesn't mean he didn't control it, refs are tools I don't think your getting the fine points of the debate. Pinning to his helmet had nothing to do with it (besides being more susceptible to a swat from the defender) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan714 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Seems like the league wants to have 2 separate rules. Imagine a quick hitting play with the receiver stretching for the goalline with a knee touching the turf, and the ball is short of the goalline but the receiver has not gone all the way down the ground. They would mark it where his knee touched and thats where the ball would be spotted. But in reality he would not have completed the catch until he went all the way to the ground. This rule is getting more messed up each season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 No offense, but if think for one second you and everyone in this board would not be freaking out and proclaiming it was not a catch if that was a chiefs player and it was ruled a catch then you are either lying or delusional. The ball is shifting to different parts of his body through the play and does not demonstrate full control. Had it been ruled a catch on the field, then maybe it stands. But no way was there anything conclusive on that close call to overturn that call IMO and no matter how I wanted it to be a catch did I think it was conclusive. Well, we are talking about 2 different things then. You are saying the refs got the challenge call correct, which they likely did, only because it was called incomplete on the field (after being called complete and down by contact by one ref). I am saying it was a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I don't think your getting the fine points of the debate. Pinning to his helmet had nothing to do with it (besides being more susceptible to a swat from the defender) There should be no fine points or any debate - use your eyes. Johnson had a catch a few minutes ago; as did Goodwin. Trying to clarify rules too much honestly ruins the game by complicating too much... Well, we are talking about 2 different things then. You are saying the refs got the challenge call correct, which they likely did, only because it was called incomplete on the field (after being called complete and down by contact by one ref). I am saying it was a catch. It was a catch. Just like Johnson's.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 There should be no fine points or any debate - use your eyes. Johnson had a catch a few minutes ago; as did Goodwin. Trying to clarify rules too much honestly ruins the game by complicating too much... It was a catch. Just like Johnson's.... So you'd prefer the refs simply use the eye test, no definition needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 So you'd prefer the refs simply use the eye test, no definition needed? You almost have to, the rule book is ridiculous nowadays. There are missed calls all over the place. The more you try to define something the harder it is to do it consistently (see the Tuck rule). You can easily use the eye test to see if it was a catch or not. Dungy said it was a catch, Collinsworth said when does a play end? It is true... A poster above mentioned how the rules apply differently at the goal line - it honestly is stupid. Back in the day 2 feet in bounds, control of the ball no trapping (in the turf), ground can't cause a fumble once you are on the ground and touched play is over. The game didn't change that you need ot further and further define every rule. It leads to way too many missed calls, inconsistency, etc... The roughing the passer call against the Chiefs was a bullsh*t call too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) You almost have to, the rule book is ridiculous nowadays. There are missed calls all over the place. The more you try to define something the harder it is to do it consistently (see the Tuck rule). You can easily use the eye test to see if it was a catch or not. Dungy said it was a catch, Collinsworth said when does a play end? It is true... A poster above mentioned how the rules apply differently at the goal line - it honestly is stupid. Back in the day 2 feet in bounds, control of the ball no trapping (in the turf), ground can't cause a fumble once you are on the ground and touched play is over. The game didn't change that you need ot further and further define every rule. It leads to way too many missed calls, inconsistency, etc... The roughing the passer call against the Chiefs was a bullsh*t call too.... I guess that flows straight into - how do you make sure two guys generally rule the same and it's not a random mish mash of opinions that vary widely? Then the additional side question of - has officiating actually gotten more inconsistent or worse with thine or are we just watching much closer with far more resources to dissect it? I know the bad calls I saw in 1995 I didnt get to break down in slo mo 29 times, compare to a library of other similar plays over the last decade on demand and discuss with hundreds of other fans Edited November 4, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I guess that flows straight into - how do you make sure two guys generally rule the same and it's not a random mish mash of opinions that vary widely? Here's how they do it New Orleans Saint fan #1. If it's a team that is bottom 5 in terms of fanbase they don't get the call. Top 5 teams do. Mid teams it's a flip of the coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Yeah, that was a terrible call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I guess that flows straight into - how do you make sure two guys generally rule the same and it's not a random mish mash of opinions that vary widely? Then the additional side question of - has officiating actually gotten more inconsistent or worse with thine or are we just watching much closer with far more resources to dissect it? I know the bad calls I saw in 1995 I didnt get to break down in slo mo 29 times, compare to a library of other similar plays over the last decade on demand and discuss with hundreds of other fans Like they rule the same now Now that is a good side question. I recall the Ref's making a ton of bad calls for as long as I can recall; it happens in every sport. It isn't like the ref's are blind is something new. The more you try to use words to describe what you want to see or what is and isn't - the more confusing you make it. You increase the opportunities for bad interpretation, inconsistency, etc. You will never be able to accurately describe every instance of what is and what isn't.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Yeah, that was a terrible call. Personally I think the call was probably right based on the rule...It's the rule that is terrible IMHO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Well, we are talking about 2 different things then. You are saying the refs got the challenge call correct, which they likely did, only because it was called incomplete on the field (after being called complete and down by contact by one ref). I am saying it was a catch. I'm saying refs got it right and that the correct call was no catch because it was ruled incomplete, ball had movement though the catch, and there was nothing shown that showed it was a conclusive catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 He had control when he hit the ground and at that point he was down by contract: play over. What happened after the play was over shouldn't matter. That was a catch. This!! The play is over when his knee is down and touched. He had possession at that point. Everything after that is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts