The Next Generation Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Regardless, this Bengals team has fight and is going to get better. Dalton has the "it" factor and the receivers are young and improving. Get rid of Benson and get a play-making RB and they are legit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I understand everyones point but doesnt the fact that he has possession when he steps OB negate the need to control it to the ground. Its a catch, he steps out with possession, then falls to the ground It is irrelevant where he goes to the ground ... he has to maintain control when he hits the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 This would be the second, which, I guess is a number. At least three years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Mike Periera stated on twitter the TD shouldn't have been overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 "Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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."' Again,he wasn't "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass". It was caught two steps before he was drug down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpackersfan Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Mike Periera stated on twitter the TD shouldn't have been overturned. This is going to cost me a win this week. I reallllllllllly needed those 9 extra points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 "Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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."' Again,he wasn't "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass". It was caught two steps before he was drug down. did you watch the video, seriously? How can you say he wasn't going to the ground and that it was caught TWO steps before he was going to the ground? SMH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Mike Periera stated on twitter the TD shouldn't have been overturned. can you post that tweet? I have looked and can't find it edit: found it https://twitter.com/#!/MikePereira/stat...362155278925824 wish he would have given his rational...but as has been said here before he has been wrong in the past Edited November 21, 2011 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 It's here: https://twitter.com/#!/MikePereira/stat...362155278925824 But go on to the read the tweets and exchanges that follow. It is far from a definitive "it was a TD" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Again,he wasn't "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass". Yes he was, I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably claim otherwise, by the time he got his second foot down he was being tackled or at least starting to trend horizontal with the ground surface with a defender contacting on him. And even Mike Peria states he was going to the ground while completing the catch. And they way I read Peria's explanation is that he thinks whatever was called on the field should have not been overturned on the replay, because there wasn't indisputable evidence that Gresham lost control of the ball after he went to the ground. The link Big John posted doesn't show much of the last part where the ball contacts the ground. But the last couple seconds sure seem to show it coming out of his hand. Here was the situation: Cincinnati had the ball, third-and-2 from the Baltimore 9-yard line with 5:35 left in the fourth quarter. Baltimore led 31-21. On the play, Bengals quarterback Andy Dalton completed a 9-yard pass to Jermaine Gresham for a touchdown. The replay assistant initiated a review on the completed pass ruling, and the play was reversed. As much as I love the word "stands," I don’t like the word "reversed," especially when there would not appear to be enough evidence to overturn the call. I think that was the case on this play. Gresham was going to the ground to complete the catch, but he had complete control of the ball in his right hand before the ball hit the ground. I do agree that the ball moves slightly when it hits the ground, but in this case Gresham kept his right hand on the ball the entire time. The ball will always move, which is why referees are told never to use that terminology. You either maintain possession or you lose possession, which means your hands come off the ball. In the end, it’s all about judgment. But you need absolutely indisputable evidence to overturn a ruling on the field. Indisputable. There’s that word again. If there’s ever a doubt, my friend Webster will clear everything up. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-wee...-reviews-112011 Edited November 21, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 to my eyes, that's a catch, but they've been calling that an incompletition consistently in accordance with the rules for several years now. if it pops out when you hit the ground, no catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 ^ THIS My brain tells me that's a TD (along with the infamous Calvin one, and several others), but the rules tell me its not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclones Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 ^ THIS My brain tells me that's a TD (along with the infamous Calvin one, and several others), but the rules tell me its not. Its the rule thats the problem - I remember maybe 10 years ago or so, Wesley Walls caught a pass in the end zone. Went to the end line, turned to face the QB, jumped up about 6 inches, caught the ball, his feet hit and the ball was immediately knocked out of his hands, and it was called a TD because he "had possession in the end zone." The whole "completing the act of the catch" BS is what the problem is. That being said, on this Gresham play its consistent with the way they have been calling it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Its the rule thats the problem - I remember maybe 10 years ago or so, Wesley Walls caught a pass in the end zone. Went to the end line, turned to face the QB, jumped up about 6 inches, caught the ball, his feet hit and the ball was immediately knocked out of his hands, and it was called a TD because he "had possession in the end zone." The whole "completing the act of the catch" BS is what the problem is. That being said, on this Gresham play its consistent with the way they have been calling it. as it often happens in the NFL, my recollection (I certainly could be mis-remembering on this though) is that this stupid rule came about when they tried to address another stupid rule or interpretation, namely the one where if the ball touched the ground AT ALL it couldn't be a complete catch. they said well ok, we'll let it be a catch if the ball touches the ground while the player is in control of it, as long as they maintain possession throughout the whole process of going to the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 as it often happens in the NFL, my recollection (I certainly could be mis-remembering on this though) is that this stupid rule came about when they tried to address another stupid rule or interpretation, namely the one where if the ball touched the ground AT ALL it couldn't be a complete catch. they said well ok, we'll let it be a catch if the ball touches the ground while the player is in control of it, as long as they maintain possession throughout the whole process of going to the ground. This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Its the rule thats the problem - I remember maybe 10 years ago or so, Wesley Walls caught a pass in the end zone. Went to the end line, turned to face the QB, jumped up about 6 inches, caught the ball, his feet hit and the ball was immediately knocked out of his hands, and it was called a TD because he "had possession in the end zone." The whole "completing the act of the catch" BS is what the problem is. That being said, on this Gresham play its consistent with the way they have been calling it. This is my problem with the rule as it is stated now because for most of my life if you had possession for any amount of time in the endzone the play was over and it was a TD, period. as it often happens in the NFL, my recollection (I certainly could be mis-remembering on this though) is that this stupid rule came about when they tried to address another stupid rule or interpretation, namely the one where if the ball touched the ground AT ALL it couldn't be a complete catch. they said well ok, we'll let it be a catch if the ball touches the ground while the player is in control of it, as long as they maintain possession throughout the whole process of going to the ground. The "Bert Emanuel Rule" A real issue here is something that has bothered me for quite some time now in football in general... the lack of following simple football basics like wrapping up to make a tackle and tucking the ball away after catching it. I watch week in and week out, these days, guys catch a ball and never put it away, simply holding it in their hand and watching time and time again as they get it knocked out or they lose it when they hit the ground. The two most famous cases of this rule to date are examples of this practice by receivers. Granted, with the Megatron "non-catch" it was clear that he had complete possession and "lost" the ball as he was getting up. Nonetheless, he tucks that ball away during the catch and it's probably never a discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degenerates11 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 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. Agree, never could figure that out....But I know what others will say, the 'runner' had possession prior to leaping into the end zone.... It is a tough, fine lined rule when it comes to securing the ball through the catch.....Look at Calvins last year against Chicago - he got up to celebrate and left the ball on the ground - rules no catch.... Semper Fi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degenerates11 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 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. Agree, never could figure that out....But I know what others will say, the 'runner' had possession prior to leaping into the end zone.... It is a tough, fine lined rule when it comes to securing the ball through the catch.....Look at Calvins last year against Chicago - he got up to celebrate and left the ball on the ground - rules no catch.... Semper Fi 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.