Blown calls

[ALF]

Giants coach Tom Coughlin disagreed, telling reporters: "You have to put the ball away."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000580863/article/odell-beckham-i-thought-it-was-a-catch

This really teaches DBs never give up , go for the strip

Edited November 16, 2015 by ALF

[eball]

The play at the end of the first half of SNF was worse than the Beckham play. The Arizona receiver clearly caught the ball and took two steps, then was stripped by the Seattle defender. They ruled incomplete.

 

Officiating in the NFL is atrocious. Preposterous. Ludicrous. Stupendous.

[ko12010]

Just watched the Beckham highlight. How can anyone think that was a catch? Not even close.

[Ryan911t]

Anyone catch the OBJ punch during that kick return?

[Webster Guy]

Beckham should have pulled the ball into his body instead putting out to show off and get it blasted out of his hands. Makes the td we got last week from Karlos look very questionable.

Yes that was silly not pulling it in. Cost them the game. There are so many simple, pop warner fundamentals ignored by some of these nfl guys its mind blowing. Catch, pull it in tight to the body, all one motion.

 

As far as Karlos play, that was running so there was none of that Complete the Play rule stuff involved . That was simply a question of posession at the goal line plane, and incredibly they don't have elevated cameras at the goal line so refs had no perfect angle to review that play and had to let it stand. Which was good.

[BuffaloBrad]

Just watched the Beckham highlight. How can anyone think that was a catch? Not even close.

 

The reason people believe that might be a catch is that plays like it have been ruled a touchdown in the past.

 

Remember last year's Golden Tate touchdown. He got two feet down and then lost the ball. Initially ruled no catch and an interception, but reversed on review. After the game, the NFL insisted that this was the correct call because he had caught the ball with two feet down, established himself as a runner, and was not going to the ground.

 

http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2015/10/18/9564873/breaking-down-call-lions-golden-tate-touchdown-fumble-muffed-punt

 

While I would argue that neither the OBJ or Tate plays should have been called a catch, I'm not going to criticize anyone for believing differently given the NFL's inconsistency.

Edited November 16, 2015 by BuffaloBrad

[ko12010]

 

The reason people believe that might be a catch is that plays like it have been ruled a touchdown in the past.

 

Remember last year's Golden Tate touchdown. He got two feet down and then lost the ball. Initially ruled no catch and an interception, but reversed on review. After the game, the NFL insisted that this was the correct call because he had caught the ball with two feet down, established himself as a runner, and was not going to the ground.

 

http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2015/10/18/9564873/breaking-down-call-lions-golden-tate-touchdown-fumble-muffed-punt

 

While I would argue that neither the OBJ or Tate plays should have been called a catch, I'm not going to criticize anyone for believing differently given the inconsistency of the NFL on what is a catch.

WOW. Great find. Forgot about that. I feel like the NFL has opened a giant can of worms with how complicated they have made everything. When I watch the Tate play, to me, it's obviously not a catch. Same with the Beckham play, which as someone else mentioned, was very similar to the Lee Evans play.

[NoSaint]

WOW. Great find. Forgot about that. I feel like the NFL has opened a giant can of worms with how complicated they have made everything. When I watch the Tate play, to me, it's obviously not a catch. Same with the Beckham play, which as someone else mentioned, was very similar to the Lee Evans play.

What's tough is a lot of the same people that yell it's too complicated would be yelling "you've got to account for that" if simplified.

 

The act of a catch can encompass such a huge range of interactions between the body, ball, field of play and defender that there isn't an easy fix to defining a catch. Could it be tweaked? Probably.

 

But I'm guessing the confusion these days comes a lot more from access to 16 camera angles at 16 games and 6million fans willing to break down every last second of it- where 20 years ago you saw at most 2-3 games and a short highlight reel that you discussed with 3 coworkers and 2 family members

Edited November 16, 2015 by NoSaint

[ko12010]

What's tough is a lot of the same people that yell it's too complicated would be yelling "you've got to account for that" if simplified.

 

The act of a catch can encompass such a huge range of interactions between the body, ball, field of play and defender that there isn't an easy fix to defining a catch. Could it be tweaked? Probably.

 

But I'm guessing the confusion these days comes a lot more from access to 16 camera angles at 16 games and 6million fans willing to break down every last second of it- where 20 years ago you saw at most 2-3 games and a short highlight reel that you discussed with 3 coworkers and 2 family members

Yep. Great point. The technology that in theory should make these things easier has actually had the opposite effect somewhat.

[apuszczalowski]

Yep. Great point. The technology that in theory should make these things easier has actually had the opposite effect somewhat.

they say the same thing with baseball having a pitch tracker on the screen. They said even players will go back and watch it after games.

 

As for the rules for catches, it's true, the rules for what is a catch and what's not, especially near any sideline or end zone are extremely complex and almost require a degree in physics to understand. There are many times where catches are called catches that make you scratch your head, and many other no catches that make you scratch your head too. For a TD it's as simple as if the ball crossed the line. WRs have to have possession of the ball coming down with both feet no where near white paint while then making a move before it is even considered caught

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

How was Odell's TD not a !@#$ing TD? He had 2 feet down!

Landon Collins interception not an interception?! His elbow was down!

Odell didn't completed the process of the catch. It's consistent with how they have been calling catches for quite some time. mr one handed catch guy just needs to keep the football.

[bbb]

WOW. Great find. Forgot about that. I feel like the NFL has opened a giant can of worms with how complicated they have made everything. When I watch the Tate play, to me, it's obviously not a catch. Same with the Beckham play, which as someone else mentioned, was very similar to the Lee Evans play.

 

Has the internet declared Beckham's play a drop, like they did with Evans?

 

[Dibs]

I have agreed with a vast majority of the refs rulings on these lineball catches this season. The rules are well defined and in most cases the refs deciscions are clearly following those rules.

 

The problem as I see it is that the standard fan is having trouble undestanding the rules....and a lot of this is due to the commentators not understanding them. When Collinsworth asks for "objective" rules, not "subjective" ones just minutes after espousing the "if a kid watches it he would call it a catch" mentality...it shows that even the best commentator has no idea what they are talking about.

 

The NFL should invest in a rules training course for media commentators and a lot of the discord regarding this would be largely disipated.

[Jobot]

Ugh. This again.

 

I hate to argue with you because the rule is so stupid, but based on how it's been called every time for the last 3 years, it's an incomplete pass.

 

If you're going to be mad, be mad for calling a pass play leaving 2:01 and a free "timeout" for NE. Then ANOTHER pass.

 

And that pick? So what that his elbow hit the ground? He didn't catch the ball?

 

I would agree, however a few weeks back Golden Tate's TD was NOT overturned. The reason given that he was not going to the ground therefore did not need to maintain possession beyond the initial act of a catch.

 

Bottom line, there's not consistency and I hate the Patriots.

[Jukester]

Texans-Bengals: Did anyone see the blatant hold/takedown of JJ Watt in the Bengals last drive on third and long. He actually got hurt on the play and had to come out of the game for a few plays. No call and The Bengals

end up completing the pass for a first down and were moving toward the winning touchdown until they fumbled.

 

Same type of crap we've seen against Hughes and Mario.

If you're an NFL official and you can't make that call, you should be fired.

[ko12010]

 

Has the internet declared Beckham's play a drop, like they did with Evans?

 

Again, to me, it was obviously not a catch. You have to possess the ball for a certain amount of time in my opinion, which is part of completing the process of the catch. He had the ball for a split second. How is that a catch? Seriously? It's ludicrous that people think that was a catch. The Evans play was a bit more arguable, because Lee possessed the ball a fraction longer. But again, he didn't complete the process of the catch.

 

If it keeps going like this, people are going to declare it a catch as soon as the ball touches a receiver's hands. WTF. You have to hold on to the ball and the DB should have more than a fraction of a second to make a play on it once the WR gets his hands on it.

I just watched it several more times. What are people thinking here? I don't even think it's arguable that that was a touchdown catch by Beckham. He hadn't even secured it before it was knocked out.

[Beerball]

I wonder if the part time refs are pushing for full time status?

[Kelly the Dog]

Again, to me, it was obviously not a catch. You have to possess the ball for a certain amount of time in my opinion, which is part of completing the process of the catch. He had the ball for a split second. How is that a catch? Seriously? It's ludicrous that people think that was a catch. The Evans play was a bit more arguable, because Lee possessed the ball a fraction longer. But again, he didn't complete the process of the catch.

 

If it keeps going like this, people are going to declare it a catch as soon as the ball touches a receiver's hands. WTF. You have to hold on to the ball and the DB should have more than a fraction of a second to make a play on it once the WR gets his hands on it.I just watched it several more times. What are people thinking here? I don't even think it's arguable that that was a touchdown catch by Beckham. He hadn't even secured it before it was knocked out.

 

I think in the endzone it may be different. Like the ball passing the plane automatically is a TD. You surely only need that much time as OBJ held the ball when it's on the sideline. Like if the pass was two yards outside of where it was and he's just catching it and keeping his feet in bounds that's a catch. I think as soon as you come down with the ball in control in the endzone it's a score. The play stops. That's what people are arguing. It's close.

[D521646]

Well catch no catch. Meh.. What I was saying to my wife while I watching was look at the conversation BB is having with Hochuli, isn't that nice, things are not going the Pats way so Bill needs to remind Ed that he is the best ever.. Then not a few minutes later, TB is having a nice pleasant conversation with Ed.. It was then that fortunes began to change for the Pats.. Look, I'm not a conspiracy guy and do not buy into this whole NFL rigged nonsense, but when you see stuff like that, and then all of a sudden the game changes momentum, ticky tacky calls, none calls.. It really does make one wonder..

 

Just sayin.

 

Tim-

[ko12010]

I think in the endzone it may be different. Like the ball passing the plane automatically is a TD. You surely only need that much time as OBJ held the ball when it's on the sideline. Like if the pass was two yards outside of where it was and he's just catching it and keeping his feet in bounds that's a catch. I think as soon as you come down with the ball in control in the endzone it's a score. The play stops. That's what people are arguing. It's close.

That makes sense when someone is already in possession of the ball before it crosses the EZ plane. When possession doesn't start until the player is already in the EZ like with this ODB play, you have to clearly establish possession for the play to be 'dead' like you're describing. I don't think it was all that close because Beckham clearly hadn't established possession before it was knocked out. Yeah, both feet were down and in bounds, but he hadn't yet secured the ball imo.

[Kelly the Dog]

That makes sense when someone is already in possession of the ball before it crosses the EZ plane. When possession doesn't start until the player is already in the EZ like with this ODB play, you have to clearly establish possession for the play to be 'dead' like you're describing. I don't think it was all that close because Beckham clearly hadn't established possession before it was knocked out. Yeah, both feet were down and in bounds, but he hadn't yet secured the ball imo.

Probably not. But it was very close. My main objection was overturning it. There was not inconclusive evidence, it was just very, very close that was probably not a catch. The issue is really that as soon as you gain possession with two feet down the play is over in the endzone. That's why it's completely different than the same play in the middle of the field where you have to complete it or do a football move or do the River Dance before it is a completion.

[simpleman]

I did not see the game, but Arizona possibly won a key game on a penalty called on Cinci because a defensive player yelled out things to confuse the Arizona offense. A player can get a penalty for yelling and being too loud. Not obscene or derogatory. He just made too much noise. If it was the fans, we would be celebrating the 12th man. Noise is a part of the game. Ridiculous !

The refs are determining the outcome of more and more games every week, not letting the coaches and players win or loose the game on the field.

Has anyone ever seen this type of penalty called in the final seconds of a game in the NFL before? Is it common now?

[Kelly the Dog]

I did not see the game, but Arizona possibly won a key game on a penalty called on Cinci because a defensive player yelled out things to confuse the Arizona offense. A player can get a penalty for yelling and being too loud. Not obscene or derogatory. He just made too much noise. If it was the fans, we would be celebrating the 12th man. Noise is a part of the game. Ridiculous !

The refs are determining the outcome of more and more games every week, not letting the coaches and players win or loose the game on the field.

Has anyone ever seen this type of penalty called in the final seconds of a game in the NFL before? Is it common now?

He was calling out fake signals. Trying to get the offensive line to move, which it did. That's a clear violation.

[John in Jax]

Re the Cincy/Ariz game: So glad the Birds won, because it sure seemed like they were getting screwed on a lot of calls. Plus, the guy would have probably made the longer kick too, although you never know.