The "Official" Super Bowl Game Thread

[untateve]

The point is he's on the ground WITH control. How long must he wait for the sluggardly Colts defender to lumber up and kick it out of his hands?

 

It would appear that Hook is asserting that the saint receiver never had adequate control of the ball and the colt defender then knocked it out. I agree with you that the saint receiver clearly had control of the ball and the catch was made and then the colt defender knocked the ball out. Therefore, the 2 pt conversion was good.

 

Thankfully, that play had no bearing on the outcome of the game.

Edited February 8, 2010 by untateve

[Rovers]

Hook, give it up. He bobbled it, then regained possession. That was plain to see on the replay, and the ref correctly changed the call. Hey, the Colts had a great season, but they lost. No point in arguing a correctly ruled call.

[Shaman]

Hook, give it up. He bobbled it, then regained possession. That was plain to see on the replay, and the ref correctly changed the call. Hey, the Colts had a great season, but they lost. No point in arguing a reviewed ruled call.

fixed

Edited February 8, 2010 by Shaman

[Outshined]

 

 

Wow - that is awesome...

[CaptainHook]

The point is he's on the ground WITH control. How long must he wait for the sluggardly Colts defender to lumber up and kick it out of his hands?

Once again. He bobbled it. The ref signaled the bobble. They show it in super slow motion, which makes it look like he had possession for an eternity, when in fact, right after the bobble, the ball is knocked free. It was a bang-bang play, and should have been ruled incomplete. Wait, it was. It should have stood up under replay. Like I said it didn't matter to the outcome, so I'm gonna drop it. The NFL has got to get this ruling correct though. Very inconsistent ruling on this play all year. Louis Murphy (I think) of the Raiders in Week 1 catches it, has posession with his knee down, goes to the ground, loses it. Ruled TD. Challenged and ruled incomplete. Same situation. You gotta hang on to the ball all the way till the ref signals TD.

[Chief Dick]

Do the refs see the replay in full speed or slow motion or both?

[Big John]

Do the refs see the replay in full speed or slow motion or both?

both. The ref decides on what would give the best description of the play reviews.

[Rovers]

Once again. He bobbled it. The ref signaled the bobble. They show it in super slow motion, which makes it look like he had possession for an eternity, when in fact, right after the bobble, the ball is knocked free. It was a bang-bang play, and should have been ruled incomplete. Wait, it was. It should have stood up under replay. Like I said it didn't matter to the outcome, so I'm gonna drop it. The NFL has got to get this ruling correct though. Very inconsistent ruling on this play all year. Louis Murphy (I think) of the Raiders in Week 1 catches it, has posession with his knee down, goes to the ground, loses it. Ruled TD. Challenged and ruled incomplete. Same situation. You gotta hang on to the ball all the way till the ref signals TD.

 

He did have possession, bobbled it, and regained control prior to the ball being kicked out. That was hard to see live, but was obvious on the replay. If he had not regained control the second time, I would agree, but that wasn't the case. Once he regained possession, was down and broke the plane... score. That is what the rule book says. The play was over before the ball was kicked back out.

[CaptainHook]

No, the rule book says you have to complete the catch when it involves a player going to the ground. He did not do that.

[Rovers]

No, the rule book says you have to complete the catch when it involves a player going to the ground. He did not do that.

 

He was already on the ground the second time he had control. He wasn't going to the ground, he was already ON the ground.

[CaptainHook]

Doesn't matter.

 

explain this

 

He's got posession. In the end zone before he loses it.

Edited February 8, 2010 by CaptainHook

[Rovers]

It does matter because he had control of the ball twice. Once on his way to the ground, the second time when he was already on the ground. Sims referred to this rule during the broadcast, it was all about having control the second time.

[CaptainHook]

It does matter because he had control of the ball twice. Once on his way to the ground, the second time when he was already on the ground. Sims referred to this rule during the broadcast, it was all about having control the second time.

They were both part of the catch. If you have to complete the catch going to the ground, you somehow get to dump that part of the rule if you bobble it? Ridiculous.

[Piles]

They were both part of the catch. If you have to complete the catch going to the ground, you somehow get to dump that part of the rule if you bobble it? Ridiculous.

 

+1 doesn't make any sense at all. Glad it didn't have any meaningful impact on the game but that does seem like an odd rule nonetheless.

[wiegie]

They were both part of the catch. If you have to complete the catch going to the ground, you somehow get to dump that part of the rule if you bobble it? Ridiculous.

The receiver had possession of the ball while the receiver was on the ground. What else do you want to know (or argue about)? (I don't get your complaint.)

[untateve]

Doesn't matter.

 

explain this

 

He's got posession. In the end zone before he loses it.

 

two things--

 

I think the murphy catch was a TD. However, the rule apparently states he must have possession going to the ground. The saint received, IMO, had possession while he was lying on the ground. Therefore it's a catch.

 

From your link:

 

By definition in our rule book, he's going to the ground and has to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire act of the catch. And in this case, he lost possession and the ball hit the ground. Therefore it is incomplete.

 

I assert that the Saint receiver had possession of the ball and he was on the ground. You assert that he bobbled it and never had possession. I would agree that if the receiver had been bobbling the ball and the colt db knocked it out then it was not a catch. I just think that the receiver had possession of the ball while he was on the ground.

[pig devilz]

They were both part of the catch. If you have to complete the catch going to the ground, you somehow get to dump that part of the rule if you bobble it? Ridiculous.

I see your point, somewhat Hook. But the correct call was made on review.

 

He did bobble it, then gained control while on the ground. The ball broke the plane of the GL with receiver having control.

AND he had not been touched yet. Very important.

Once he was touched, and downed, the ball had already broken the plane of the GL, player already on the ground,

play over and therefore a TD..... THEN then the ball is kicked out, AFTER the play is effectively over.

 

I'd say it's akin to a player bobbling a catch anywhere in the EZ, then regains possession, not touched yet, falls to ground,

with possession, then defender comes over and knocks the ball out. Thats a TD.

 

Play is over in the EZ when receiver has possession, and is on the ground, with possession.

Doesn't matter what happens after that.

[gbpfan1231]

The receiver had possession of the ball while the receiver was on the ground. What else do you want to know (or argue about)? (I don't get your complaint.)

I understand where he is coming from - so do you think the link Hook provided was then a bad call? Murphy had possesion when he was on the ground (2 feet and his rear end) what is the definition of "on the ground".

[gbpfan1231]

I see your point, somewhat Hook. But the correct call was made on review.

 

He did bobble it, then gained control while on the ground. The ball broke the plane of the GL with receiver having control.

AND he had not been touched yet. Very important.

Once he was touched, and downed, the ball had already broken the plane of the GL, player already on the ground,

play over and therefore a TD..... THEN then the ball is kicked out, AFTER the play is effectively over.

 

I'd say it's akin to a player bobbling a catch anywhere in the EZ, then regains possession, not touched yet, falls to ground,

with possession, then defender comes over and knocks the ball out. Thats a TD.

 

Play is over in the EZ when receiver has possession, and is on the ground, with possession.

Doesn't matter what happens after that.

I may be an idiot but what does the bobble have to do with it?

[untateve]

I may be an idiot but what does the bobble have to do with it?

 

I think that Hook believes that the receiver was bobbling it when it was knocked out of his hands.

[pig devilz]

I may be an idiot but what does the bobble have to do with it?

see post 289 above....was responding to that.

 

Phill Simms called it the 'second act'. Receiver gained control during the second act

of trying to control the ball. It matters because the receiver had not been touched, or downed yet.

He can bobble it all he wants as long as it doesnt touch the ground and he is not downed by defender.

 

edit....in other words he can try and gain possession of the ball as long as the play is not ruled dead

and this one was not. Receiver did, imo, gain control of the ball.

Edited February 8, 2010 by pig devilz

[keggerz]

disagree. He bobbled it AND THEN GAINED POSSESSION BEFORE THE BALL WAS KNOCKED OUT. The ref clearly signaled it.

FIXED

[keggerz]

Doesn't matter.

 

explain this

 

He's got posession. In the end zone before he loses it.

The Murphy call leaves a bit to interpretation due to the ball moving...I think the Ref go the call wrong but it is far from the same as the 2pt conversion call....

 

Here is the rule with regards to possession...

 

Article 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 completely on the

ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

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 a defender) must maintain control of the

ball after he touches 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 retain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the act of falling

to the ground and after hitting 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.

A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in

flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control

of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the

ball has touched the ground.

Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is

contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by

contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a

touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss

of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

[piratesownninjas]

Wasn't Bill Bilichek crucifiied on the boards for not shaking hands with the Giants after they lost the super bowl? I guess Peyton Manning and Reggie Wayne now fall into the classless catagory.

[keggerz]

Wasn't Bill Bilichek crucifiied on the boards for not shaking hands with the Giants after they lost the super bowl? I guess Peyton Manning and Reggie Wayne now fall into the classless catagory.

They showed Manning heading off the field and we wondered if he ever made his way to shake hands or went right off the field...I do think that he should have made the attempt and for all I know he did but we only see what CBS wanted or let us see.