What is the right call?

[purplemonster]

Pats-Vikings game last night. I couldn't watch the game so couldn't hear a lot of the commentary about it. But it seems like an interesting call, I see incomplete, TD, and down at the 1 (as that is when he re-possessed it) as possible responses. 

Did Hunter Henry catch that? Iffy call costs Patriots a TD on Thanksgiving (yahoo.com)

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by purplemonster

[League_Champion]

It looked like a TD to me. 

[purplemonster]

I realized after I wrote this I was mostly interested in what people think a catch should be, regardless of the rule. 

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by purplemonster

[League_Champion]

32 minutes ago, purplemonster said:

I realized after I wrote this I was mostly interested in what people think a catch should be, regardless of the rule. 

 

If I was King Of All Things Football then that's a catch all day, every day. If you have to review it 50 times then it's a catch!!! 

[purplemonster]

1 hour ago, League_Champion said:

If I was King Of All Things Football then that's a catch all day, every day. If you have to review it 50 times then it's a catch!!! 

 It's not very intuilive. Why does a QB who puts the ball over the line get automatically credited with a TD? They will say because he had established possession.  And they qualify possession (in a reception) as a catch without a bobble and then a football move. Unless you're going to the ground in the same motion. Then you have to 'survive the ground'. Is that right?  I guess I don't understand, let's do a thought experiment here. Let's say a guy catches the ball and  simultaneously jumps from the one yd line all the way through the damn end zone and lands in the stands.  Why should he have to hold on to that ball in the stands for it to be a touchdown?  I'm not sure I understand it but he needs to survive the ground. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by purplemonster

[stethant]

The NFL makes billions a year and still can't figure out what a catch is.

That Henry TD (I had no FFL players going for or against in that game and had no bets on it) is a direct extension of the '99 rule change (The Bert Emaunuel Bucs non-catch 🤬) - the ground didn't help Henry do manure.

 

[stethant]

3 hours ago, purplemonster said:

 It's not very intuilive. Why does a QB who puts the ball over the line get automatically credited with a TD? They will say because he had established possession.  And they qualify possession (in a reception) as a catch without a bobble and then a football move. Unless you're going to the ground in the same motion. Then you have to 'survive the ground'. Is that right?  I guess I don't understand, let's do a thought experiment here. Let's say a guy catches the ball and  simultaneously jumps from the one yd line all the way through the damn end zone and lands in the stands.  Why should he have to hold on to that ball in the stands for it to be a touchdown?  I'm not sure I understand it but he needs to survive the ground. 

I assure you - we don't understand either. NFL makes up a phrase - "survive the ground" - that doesn't mean anything or add any clarity.

[Jaxfactor904]

He made the football move by reaching over the goal line. He had both hands on the ball at the time. Only when he comes down after being tackled does the ball hit the ground. But he already had possession and made his move by reaching the ball over the goal line. NFL dropped the ball on this one. 
   Maybe it’s karma from a few years ago when Steelers backup TE was not credited with a TD against the Patriots.

[stevegrab]

Would have been nice if the linked article actually included the video of the play it was talking about, instead of other random plays from that game. 

Trying to find it, not much luck including two other stories about it, which both included a still image of the ball in his hands crossing the goal line. Then one has like 5 seconds, looked like a catch and TD to me before the ball came loose. 

Of course any use of the "surviving the ground" rules is stupid since it was removed years ago. 

SO I vote TD. 

As for what is or isn't a catch, sometimes officials get it wrong, sometimes fans don't understand the rules. 

[Big John]

 

[stevegrab]

16 minutes ago, Big John said:

 

Thanks for the video clip john. It was just annoying that an article about the very catch couldn't bother to include the video. There was a link to something on Twitter, but that specific tweet was not visible to me (something about the persons sharing of tweets with others).

Still looks like a TD to me, I read parts of this article which explains why the NFL ruling is so dumb, citing a non-existent rule. Henry first makes contact with the ball clearly in his hands, then it rolls a bit and the ball touches the ground, and then he rolls over and takes control. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/nfl-explanation-overturned-patriots-hunter-henry-touchdown-makes-it-worse-walt-anderson/

[purplemonster]

29 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Thanks for the video clip john. It was just annoying that an article about the very catch couldn't bother to include the video. There was a link to something on Twitter, but that specific tweet was not visible to me (something about the persons sharing of tweets with others).

Still looks like a TD to me, I read parts of this article which explains why the NFL ruling is so dumb, citing a non-existent rule. Henry first makes contact with the ball clearly in his hands, then it rolls a bit and the ball touches the ground, and then he rolls over and takes control. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/nfl-explanation-overturned-patriots-hunter-henry-touchdown-makes-it-worse-walt-anderson/

It was definitely there before, I wouldn't have shared it unless it included the video as that is just annoying. That said, BJ's video is great, that's the best one I've seen. 

[Caveman_Nick]

In this case the only right call was to leave the call on the field, whichever way they called it.  No way to irrefutably say the ball did or did not touch the ground with the receiver's fingers clearly seen under the ball.  The video evidence is not indisputable.  Unfortunately for Pats fans the refs 'reffed it up". 

[gilthorp]

There always seems to be one of these catch, no catch over reffing calls each year that decides an outcome.

[stevegrab]

Kind of surprised there was no mention of the missed call in the SEA-LV game when a SEA player entered the field from the sideline to help block on an interception. Talk about blind officials, dang. 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/seahawks-linebacker-gets-away-with-critical-penalty-during-interception-vs-raiders-in-week-12/

[purplemonster]

11 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Kind of surprised there was no mention of the missed call in the SEA-LV game when a SEA player entered the field from the sideline to help block on an interception. Talk about blind officials, dang. 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/seahawks-linebacker-gets-away-with-critical-penalty-during-interception-vs-raiders-in-week-12/

What an odd play, I hope somebody asks him what he was thinking. Regardless of what his thought process was, he did the right thing by acting like he belonged and joined the play, so nobody noticed him 

[Big John]

That reminds me of the college football play long ago where a defensive player entered the play to tackle the runner.  A touchdown was awarded for a palibility unfair act

 

[BillyBalata]

For those that think this was a catch, explain this to me. why did he bobble the ball?  It hit the ground, did that not cause him to to lose control of the ball? have you never seen this same exact call made a dozen times in games you have watched?  he caught the ball while he was completely in the air, one foot came down but the other didn't, close but he didn't finish the catch and the ball hit the ground, causing him to momentarily lose control of the ball. incomplete.

[purplemonster]

11 minutes ago, BillyBalata said:

For those that think this was a catch, explain this to me. why did he bobble the ball?  It hit the ground, did that not cause him to to lose control of the ball? have you never seen this same exact call made a dozen times in games you have watched?  he caught the ball while he was completely in the air, one foot came down but the other didn't, close but he didn't finish the catch and the ball hit the ground, causing him to momentarily lose control of the ball. incomplete.

Just to be clear, that 2nd toe doesn't really matter does it? Even if he had clearly touched that toe down before the ball hit the ground (the tip of the ball clearly did) what matters is surviving the ground, correct?

Edited November 28, 2022 by purplemonster

[BillyBalata]

4 minutes ago, purplemonster said:

Just to be clear, that 2nd toe doesn't really matter does it? Even if he had clearly touched that toe down before the ball hit the ground (the tip of the ball clearly did) what matters is surviving the ground, correct?

you're probably correct on that, i kinda threw that in for the "complete a football move" people. But you're also correct he didn't survive the ground. that's the key i think.

[stevegrab]

3 hours ago, BillyBalata said:

For those that think this was a catch, explain this to me. why did he bobble the ball?  It hit the ground, did that not cause him to to lose control of the ball? have you never seen this same exact call made a dozen times in games you have watched?  he caught the ball while he was completely in the air, one foot came down but the other didn't, close but he didn't finish the catch and the ball hit the ground, causing him to momentarily lose control of the ball. incomplete.

There is no "surviving the ground" rule any more but you have to make the football move and finish it. If this was a play in the field of play, far from the GL nobody would be talking. He probably would have pulled the ball in to his chest instead, and not had it come out. 

I think the problem is the numerous changes over recent years, the "is it or isn't it a catch" and the numerous odd situations that don't seem right and are poorly explained by the NFL. 

Reading your explanation I can agree with it not being a TD, since it came out as he finished the catch. 

[rajncajn]

Replay says this wasn't a catch. I don't think I'll ever truly understand what is & isn't a catch.

 

[stevegrab]

8 hours ago, rajncajn said:

Replay says this wasn't a catch. I don't think I'll ever truly understand what is & isn't a catch.

 

I don't see how it got overturned, what bogus reasoning was used? I see catch and 2 feet, then a tackle that caused him to hit the ground which jarred the ball lose (completed pass and down where he hits, no fumble). 

[Chief Dick]

9 hours ago, rajncajn said:

Replay says this wasn't a catch. I don't think I'll ever truly understand what is & isn't a catch.

 

That's a catch in every world. 

[rajncajn]

This makes it all so much better