PDA

View Full Version : Santonio's "non-catch"



saxtonsteeler
01-20-2009, 07:36 PM
Sorry if this has been discussed. Did the ball land on the goal line? If it did, would it not be a TD as the ball would have had to cross the plane while in his possession? I thought once the ball crosses the plane, play over...TD

SanAntonioSteelerFan
01-20-2009, 07:55 PM
Sorry if this has been discussed. Did the ball land on the goal line? If it did, would it not be a TD as the ball would have had to cross the plane while in his possession? I thought once the ball crosses the plane, play over...TD

The ignorant announcers were implying that because he was tackled to the ground after a reception, he had to maintain complete control even after hitting the ground.

I don't know how they would get around the point you are making, unless there is some bizarre rule that says by definition he didn't have possession falling across the goal line if in fact he subsequently bobbled it and it hit the ground.

I wonder if that NFL joker will be asked about this play in his weekly explanation. If anyone sees it, please post!

Thanks!

RuthlessBurgher
01-20-2009, 08:07 PM
From my spot in the upper deck, I was confused as to what exactly was going on during that challenge, since there was not much in the way of an explanation given to us at the stadium. The refs originally ruled it a catch and down at the 1 yard line, right? Then I think both Harbaugh and Tomlin both threw challenge flags...is that correct? Tomlin thought it should have been a TD and Harbaugh thought it should have been an incomplete pass. Has there ever been a play that was challenged by both coaches at the same time like this?

Flasteel
01-20-2009, 08:11 PM
I'm curious to the official word on this as well. I'm 99% sure that the ball hit the ground just before the goal line. It shouldn't really matter in terms of a catch or not however. Holmes clearly took three steps with possession of the ball in addition to launching himself forward with his hand/ arm as he went to the ground. This clearly is possession with that nebulous term "football move" attached.

Since when did maintaining control "through the catch" apply to receptions where possession is clearly established before contact with the ground?

It should have been our ball at the one yard line or a TD if in fact he did cross. I think it was a bad overturn.

NW Steeler
01-20-2009, 08:14 PM
I believe that the ruling in that instance is that the receiver has to maintain control even after he hits the ground. But he took at least two steps before he hit the ground AFTER he caught the ball, so it was just a bad call, IMO.

Flasteel
01-20-2009, 08:31 PM
I believe that the ruling in that instance is that the receiver has to maintain control even after he hits the ground. But he took at least two steps before he hit the ground AFTER he caught the ball, so it was just a bad call, IMO.

Exactly right NW.

Let's say 'Tone caught the ball at the 10 yard line and bobbed his way through a couple of defenders on route to the end zone. Just before he gets to the goal line, someone wraps his legs up and he dives forward only to have the ball knocked loose by the impact with the ground (across the plane or not).

It's a catch (ground can't cause a fumble). There is no need to maintain control through contact with the ground. Possession was established via the 10 steps he took before he dove at the goal line.

snarky
01-20-2009, 08:33 PM
The more i think about this the more i think it was a blown call (I originally thought they were correct to rule it incomplete).

Planting his arm to propel is arm forward and swinging the ball out has to constitute a football move. I hope they touch on this on NFLN this week.

stlrz d
01-20-2009, 08:49 PM
The more i think about this the more i think it was a blown call (I originally thought they were correct to rule it incomplete).

Planting his arm to propel is arm forward and swinging the ball out has to constitute a football move. I hope they touch on this on NFLN this week.

There's no more "football move" in the rule book. A receiver brought to the ground immediately must maintain control and possession to the ground.

They missed the steps Holmes took...it was a blown call.

Mister Pittsburgh
01-20-2009, 08:49 PM
TD or not it was clearly a catch and the ground can't cause a fumble. He had the ball, took a step, put his hand on the ground to lunge forward, and then the ball didn't come out till it hit the ground.

Bottom line is they were trying to keep it close the keep the most watched show, rating wise this year, enthralling a television audience. People that aren't Steelers or Ravens fans would stop watching if the Steelers got up 17-0 after the first qtr.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
01-20-2009, 11:10 PM
From my spot in the upper deck, I was confused as to what exactly was going on during that challenge, since there was not much in the way of an explanation given to us at the stadium. The refs originally ruled it a catch and down at the 1 yard line, right? Then I think both Harbaugh and Tomlin both threw challenge flags...is that correct? Tomlin thought it should have been a TD and Harbaugh thought it should have been an incomplete pass. Has there ever been a play that was challenged by both coaches at the same time like this?

Not sure exactly what the ruling was, but only the Baltimore challenge was taken.

Djfan
01-21-2009, 03:20 AM
There's no more "football move" in the rule book. A receiver brought to the ground immediately must maintain control and possession to the ground.

They missed the steps Holmes took...it was a blown call.


Immediately. That is the key, and it didn't apply to Tone here, since he took 3 steps. Blown call that we overcame again. Expect a letter from the NFL.

Rooney should start a wall for these letters during the Goodell dark ages.

I hope this goon and his lackey leave soon.

Northern_Blitz
01-21-2009, 01:23 PM
This is how I understand the new rule:

If a receiver is hit before he gains posession of the ball, he must maintain posession when he goes to the ground.

I think that two good examples of this rule from the AFCC are SH's catch and McGahee's (when he got lit up).

SH made the catch, got hit, then took steps. So, then he has to keep posession going to the ground. The fact that the ball crossed the GL before he lost posession doesn't matter. It's like a receiver that makes the grab in the EZ, gets both feet down in the corner, but loses when he hits the ground. By the old rules he had posession in the EZ so it would have been a TD. By the new rules you have to keep posession when you go to the ground. (I also don't think it would have mattered if SH's knees touched when he was extending himself. He still would have had to hold onto the ball.)

On the McGahee catch, he cought the ball, took two steps and then got hit by Clark. Since he established posession before the contact, he doesn't have to keep posession when going to the ground. Since he lost posession when going to the ground (before he was down) it was a fumble and not an incomplete pass.

Two plays, one rule. I think that the refs got it right in both cases.

Chavezz
01-21-2009, 01:30 PM
I believe that the ruling in that instance is that the receiver has to maintain control even after he hits the ground. But he took at least two steps before he hit the ground AFTER he caught the ball, so it was just a bad call, IMO.

But the ground can't cause a fumble. I'd like to hear the full explanation on this.

ikestops85
01-21-2009, 01:38 PM
I'm also confused by the ruling. In the earlier game Fitzgerald had the same type of play where he caught the ball, got hit, lunged forward and lost the ball when it hit the ground. That was ruled a completion. In fact it has been a staple of the highlights shown from that game. :?

BURGH86STEEL
01-21-2009, 02:35 PM
I believe that the ruling in that instance is that the receiver has to maintain control even after he hits the ground. But he took at least two steps before he hit the ground AFTER he caught the ball, so it was just a bad call, IMO.

Exactly right NW.

Let's say 'Tone caught the ball at the 10 yard line and bobbed his way through a couple of defenders on route to the end zone. Just before he gets to the goal line, someone wraps his legs up and he dives forward only to have the ball knocked loose by the impact with the ground (across the plane or not).

It's a catch (ground can't cause a fumble). There is no need to maintain control through contact with the ground. Possession was established via the 10 steps he took before he dove at the goal line.

I believe it was a catch and should had been spotted just short of the goal line.

The more I think about it, I believe Harbaugh had some influence on the decision by the ref. Harbaugh's wording of the challenge could of got the ref to thinking about the review of the play. The wording or interpretation of the rule by Harbaugh might of influenced the refs decision. If that was the case, have to give Harbaugh credit for manipulating the rule and the ref. The rule will have to be reviewed and changed AGAIN.

proudpittsburgher
01-22-2009, 09:51 AM
I still don't quite understand the ruling, and if indeed the ruling was carried forth to the letter of the law, I think it is a bad rule. Tone caught the ball and immediately possessed it. He took two, and some could even say three steps, lunged and lost the ball because of the ground causing the fumble. In my eyes, at worst, tone made the catch and fumbled, which he recovered. Like I said, if the rulign was indeed correct, then it is a bad rule. I only caught the tail end of Perrera's segment on NFLN, did he address it?

RussBII
01-22-2009, 10:05 AM
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e457d6

I haven't watched it yet, but that's a link to this weeks "Official Review." I'm running late for work but had to post this, peace out!

RussBII
01-22-2009, 10:31 AM
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e457d6

I haven't watched it yet, but that's a link to this weeks "Official Review." I'm running late for work but had to post this, peace out!

They didn't even mention the Steelers. Just two crap calls in the NFCCG. I imagine Pereira didn't want to say the word "Steelers" lest Rich Eisen say the words "Holding" and "Harrison."

He did announce the umpire for the game: Terry McAulay

skyhawk
01-22-2009, 02:58 PM
I believe it was a catch.

But I think the call (ruling) is similar to the Polamalu interception that was overturned against Indy in 2005. He didn't maintain control throughout the play.

Still, both calls are bogus.

RussBII
01-22-2009, 03:09 PM
But I think the call (ruling) is similar to the Polamalu interception that was overturned against Indy in 2005.

As in they were both horsesh1t?

:Agree

skyhawk
01-22-2009, 04:03 PM
But I think the call (ruling) is similar to the Polamalu interception that was overturned against Indy in 2005.

As in they were both horsesh1t?

:Agree

Yep.

Northern_Blitz
01-22-2009, 04:46 PM
I believe it was a catch.

But I think the call (ruling) is similar to the Polamalu interception that was overturned against Indy in 2005. He didn't maintain control throughout the play.

Still, both calls are bogus.

TP's should have been a catch becuase he wasn't hit before he got posession (wasn't hit at all before he dropped it). That call was blown.

SH's should not have been a catch because he was hit before he got posession (so he needed to maintain posession when he went to ground).

steelercorp
01-23-2009, 05:19 AM
To put it simple I don't see how Holmes catch and fumble was any different than the Clark hit n fumble where the receiver only took like 1 step before he was hit. If ya can go back and look at the video of each play. With Holmes on a big play early in the game it was incomplete but with the Clark hit late in the game it was a fumble.

Northern_Blitz
01-23-2009, 11:36 AM
To put it simple I don't see how Holmes catch and fumble was any different than the Clark hit n fumble where the receiver only took like 1 step before he was hit. If ya can go back and look at the video of each play. With Holmes on a big play early in the game it was incomplete but with the Clark hit late in the game it was a fumble.


Honestly, it's easy to tell the difference.

Both plays are in this highlight package:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e3622b

@ around 45 seconds. Contact is made on Holmes immeadiately when the ball is in his hands. Contact before posession, he has to keep posession to the ground.

@ around 6:30, it looks to me like WMcG gets 2 or 3 steps before he got hit. Posession before contact, so it's a fumble.

proudpittsburgher
01-23-2009, 11:51 AM
To put it simple I don't see how Holmes catch and fumble was any different than the Clark hit n fumble where the receiver only took like 1 step before he was hit. If ya can go back and look at the video of each play. With Holmes on a big play early in the game it was incomplete but with the Clark hit late in the game it was a fumble.


Honestly, it's easy to tell the difference.

Both plays are in this highlight package:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e3622b

@ around 45 seconds. Contact is made on Holmes immeadiately when the ball is in his hands. Contact before posession, he has to keep posession to the ground.

@ around 6:30, it looks to me like WMcG gets 2 or 3 steps before he got hit. Posession before contact, so it's a fumble.

I think we all get what you are saying, but it just makes the rule bad, IMO. We have grown up learning that two feet down is a possession and that the ground can't cause a fumble. Regardless of when he was hit, he took two+ steps, maintained control and only lost possession when the ball hit the ground. Bad part is, if Santonio doesn't reach for the goalline, he most likely maintains possession and we have it at the one or two yard line. That, and it would have saved me from the bottle of Tums I had to digest during the rest of the game. :)

Northern_Blitz
01-23-2009, 05:15 PM
I think we all get what you are saying, but it just makes the rule bad, IMO. We have grown up learning that two feet down is a possession and that the ground can't cause a fumble. Regardless of when he was hit, he took two+ steps, maintained control and only lost possession when the ball hit the ground. Bad part is, if Santonio doesn't reach for the goalline, he most likely maintains possession and we have it at the one or two yard line. That, and it would have saved me from the bottle of Tums I had to digest during the rest of the game. :)

For years we've all been complaining that it's too offensive a game and all the rules favour the offence. Now, the league puts in a rule that actually helps the defence (and encourages defensive players to be aggressive) and again we complain about it.

I hated it when the Seahawks fans / players complained about officiating. I hate it when the Ravens fans / players complain about officiating. I think that when Steelers fans complain about officiating it brings us down to their level, and I always consider Steelers fans as knowing more about football than most. I love that Tomlin doesn't get into this kind of crap like Harbaugh.

I think there may be an arguement for changing the rule, or at least looking at it. I think in this case, the rule was put in place for plays where the receiver goes down immeadiately, or gets hit in the EZ or on the side line. SH did carry the DB for a couple yards. But I think that the rule is clear.

It'd be a shame if a play like this because like the "Coin toss play" where years later people are still complaining about it, even though the ref made the right call.

I was posting the info for those who keep saying that they didn't understand the difference, or couldn't understand why it was called that way, or what was different about the two plays.

PS In neither case are we talking about the ground causing the fumble. But if you get hammered by a DB, particularly in the EZ, I don't think you should be "saved by the bell" when you hit the ground". Personally, I like rules that encourage players to play aggressively. Aggressive play (particularly by one #95) is the reason that the Steelers became my favourite football team.