frenzal rhomb Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 my question is this - yeah he lost control when he hit the ground, but he had control when the first foot went Out of bounds. Shouldnt the play end when he steps OB??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Not to mention the ball had broken the plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 I didn't see the play .. but my understanding is that whenever a WR goes up to catch the ball and goes down to the ground he MUST show control of the ball after contacting the ground. It is irrelevant where on the field the WR lands on the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 I didn't see the play .. but my understanding is that whenever a WR goes up to catch the ball and goes down to the ground he MUST show control of the ball after contacting the ground. It is irrelevant where on the field the WR lands on the ground. This..........but if ever a rule needed tweaking, this is the one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 He was dragged down after possession,both feet down,and breaking the plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 He was dragged down after possession,both feet down,and breaking the plane. but if he went to the ground he has to maintain possession the entire time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 but if he went to the ground he has to maintain possession the entire time. only if it's caught in the endzone, if it's catches it outside the endzone(which he did), then breaks the plain he doesn't have to have control it, only if he caught it inside the endzone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 but if he went to the ground he has to maintain possession the entire time. Â Yup...this type of call has been consistent for several seasons now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) only if it's caught in the endzone, if it's catches it outside the endzone(which he did), then breaks the plain he doesn't have to have control it, only if he caught it inside the endzone. incorrect  from the NFL Rule Book   PLAYER POSSESSIONArticle 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone. The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing). Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery. Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession. Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. Edited November 20, 2011 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troublez Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 only if it's caught in the endzone, if it's catches it outside the endzone(which he did), then breaks the plain he doesn't have to have control it, only if he caught it inside the endzone.  incorrect  You are thinking of if the player is running or diving in to the end zone after already having possession of the ball. Then you only need to break the plain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) You guys flouting the rule book are forgetting that he took TWO STEPS AFTER securing the ball.He wasn't attempting to secure the ball,he already had. Â He didn't catch the ball,fall to the ground,and then have it pop out.He juggled it,secured it,then took two steps,and then was drug down to the ground.Had that been in the field of play,I guarantee it would have been ruled a fumble. Edited November 20, 2011 by Sox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Keggerz-that note states "trying to secure the ball while going to the ground." He had it secured-he wasn't juggling it on the way down.He even took two steps before the going to the ground process began,and that was after the ball had been secured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Keggerz-that note states "trying to secure the ball while going to the ground." He had it secured-he wasn't juggling it on the way down.He even took two steps before the going to the ground process began,and that was after the ball had been secured. Â Â Read the first part of the rule...i believe what the interpretation is basically saying is... if you are going to the ground you are deemed to be TRYING to secure the possession until the catch is completed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Keggerz-that note states "trying to secure the ball while going to the ground." He had it secured-he wasn't juggling it on the way down.He even took two steps before the going to the ground process began,and that was after the ball had been secured. I didn't see the play...but if they overturned it then the above is why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troublez Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 I'm watching the replay over and over again because I have NFL gamepass. He did not secure the ball and then take two steps. He got possession as he was taking his first of two possession steps simultaneously and the actual catch happened inside the endzone. He has to maintain possession of the ball all the way down, which he didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 still a stupid rule, a RB or QB can dive into the endzone and don't have to have control of the ball but a WR does, doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 He wasn't in the process of securing possession. He had secured possession. I didn't think the ground could cause a fumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 He wasn't in the process of securing possession. He had secured possession. I didn't think the ground could cause a fumble. Actually, the ground can cause a fumble....picture this...WR breaks free...catches pass with no one around him...takes 5 or 6 strides then stumbles and falls the ball pops out when it hits the ground..there you go, ground caused a fumble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) does anyone have a video of the play? Edited November 21, 2011 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 still a stupid rule, a RB or QB can dive into the endzone and don't have to have control of the ball but a WR does, doesn't make sense. That's because they already have possession, which kind of negates the need to establish possession, don't you think? Â If Gresham had established possession before getting in the endzone, it would be no different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 does anyone have a video of the play? Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 thanks...I honestly don't know how anyone can say he had possession before the ball crossed the goal line...got both hands on it completely "on" the stripe at that point he is going to ground, needs to keep possession of the ball...I will try and do some screen shots but not sure how successful I will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 thanks...I honestly don't know how anyone can say he had possession before the ball crossed the goal line...got both hands on it completely "on" the stripe at that point he is going to ground, needs to keep possession of the ball...I will try and do some screen shots but not sure how successful I will be. Â He had possession before he even went in the end zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) He had possession before he even went in the end zone. Â He didn't even have his second foot down until after he crossed the goal line. He then went to the ground and didn't maintain possession. The NFL has been calling this an incompletion time and time again for a number of years now. Edited November 21, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 He had possession before he even went in the end zone. No he didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.