gilthorp Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 I have seen the NFL make so many opposite rulings on this. Freeman last week vs. Tate this week. It is well past an issue they need to address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolverines Fan Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 It didn't look like Tate had control of the ball. I was very surprised the int was overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 That was an awful call and everyone playing, watching and officiating is confused. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 With Walt "Tuck Rule" Coleman making the reversal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 With Walt "Tuck Rule" Coleman making the reversal. He is the "activist judge" of NFL officials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 I thought I understood the rule.....before that play. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 The NFL has their heads so far up their asses in regards to what is a catch and what is not a catch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 The NFL has their heads so far up their asses in regards to what is a catch and what is not a catch yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stethant Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 The NFL has their heads so far up their asses in regards to what is a catch and what is not a catch +1. Listening to Dean Blandino try to explain it on NFL Redzone was not helpful at all. They basically make up an explanation depending on which position they're trying to justify for a given catch/no catch call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 If he had been "falling to the ground" it would have been a turnover ... I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 I thought I understood the rule.....before that play. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 They should simplify the damn rule. If you catch the ball, demonstrate control of the ball and the ball crosses the plain of the EZ then it should be a TD no matter if you are falling, running or flying. If you catch the ball, have control and get two feet down in bounds then it should be a catch no matter if you are falling, running, or flying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AX2RUN Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 +1. Listening to Dean Blandino try to explain it on NFL Redzone was not helpful at all. They basically make up an explanation depending on which position they're trying to justify for a given catch/no catch call. Iv come to realize the Blandino is just the cover man for when officials screw up something and everyone sees it. Nothing he has ever said in defense of an official has ever made sense to anyone ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Iv come to realize the Blandino is just the cover man for when officials screw up something and everyone sees it. Nothing he has ever said in defense of an official has ever made sense to anyone ever. The ref.s are going to spin it in a manner that it seems like the interpreted the rules correctly ... no matter that they give a different spin to it on a different call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 I have no problem with Tate's TD being called as such. But there are others that should be the exact same ruling and they aren't. If it's on a catch before the goal line, just breaking the plane should not be enough. Control and possession over the line is needed. It can't be ruled as if he's a runner within a yard of the end zone. I don't believe Freeman's catch last week should have been a TD, and because of that, I don't believe Tate's was this week. And by the way, Golden Tate is one annoying player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 And by the way, Golden Tate is one annoying player. One thing everyone agrees on. Maybe it was a make-up call for the fail mary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 One thing everyone agrees on. Maybe it was a make-up call for the fail mary A questionable completetion as a makeup for another questionable completetion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 A questionable completetion as a makeup for another questionable completetion? welcome to today's NFL! Leave rhyme and reason at the door, its like the twiglight zone...a new era! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 I think a catch that starts in the end zone is pretty well established...you must control it to the ground with two feet established. The catch where a receiver doesn't establish they are a runner because they are in the progress of making the catch at the goal line is something they are making up as they go and it needs to be fixed. This football move interpretation needs to be defined as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrelmastr21 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 (edited) If he had been "falling to the ground" it would have been a turnover ... I think. If he held the ball for 5 more seconds then went to the ground then dropped it when he put his hand down to stand back up it would've been a drop. I have no idea how that is a catch and Dez Bryant's catch was incomplete. Edited October 19, 2015 by squirrelmastr21 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.