PDA

View Full Version : TD Dugan of Vikes???



stlrz d
11-01-2009, 07:47 PM
For those of you who aren't getting the game, or who aren't watching it...take a peek at the highlights later...why is this a TD? He went to the ground and didn't maintain control of the ball.

I'll post the link to the NFL.com highlight as soon as it's up.

DukieBoy
11-01-2009, 07:55 PM
Same perception here.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
11-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Yeah, if that was a TD, so was Sweeds a while back, and the monkey would not be on his back now.

So, I'm pissed off!!

stlrz d
11-01-2009, 07:58 PM
Here's the video. He's going to the ground the whole way and loses the ball as soon as he hits the ground.

According to the rule this should NOT be a TD.

But of course I think the rule is simply ridiculous and should be done away with immediately.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/200911010 ... #tab:watch (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009110105/2009/REG8/vikings@packers#tab:watch)

stlrz d
11-01-2009, 08:33 PM
Here is the exact wording of the rule:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:

"Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

RuthlessBurgher
11-01-2009, 09:25 PM
It's no different the Sweed and Hines plays that were called incomplete in the end zone. No different at all.

stlrz d
11-01-2009, 09:59 PM
I'm having a tough time remembering...was the Ward TD overturned in the Bengals game also?

stlrz d
11-01-2009, 10:06 PM
Browns game...figured it out.

stlrz d
11-01-2009, 10:16 PM
So I was looking for the Ward TD "drop" in the Browns highlights and surprise, surprise...it's not there. Wonder why???

The Sweed play is in the Bengals game highlights, but the Ward play isn't in the Browns game highlights.

Hmmmm..............

RockyMountainSteeler
11-01-2009, 10:59 PM
I saw the same thing and it kind of pissed me off. It was really obvious and I wonder why the ref didn't see it, I was not watching it live so I am not sure of the circumstances surrounding the play. Did the Packers challange or was Green Bay out of challanges? What did the announcers say about the "catch". If they call that a catch then both Wards and Sweeds should have counted.

DHSF
11-01-2009, 11:24 PM
I think I figured out the difference between the plays, but it still makes no sense. On the 2 Steeler plays that were ruled incomplete, the players were in the end zone when they dropped the pass. On this play, the player caught the ball, crossed the plane, fell down then dropped the ball. They called it a TD. I think it is inconsistent and either all 3 plays should have been a TD or none of them a TD.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
11-01-2009, 11:25 PM
I saw the same thing and it kind of pissed me off. It was really obvious and I wonder why the ref didn't see it, I was not watching it live so I am not sure of the circumstances surrounding the play. Did the Packers challange or was Green Bay out of challanges? What did the announcers say about the "catch". If they call that a catch then both Wards and Sweeds should have counted.
Announcers wimped out, didn't say a WORD about it. Duhhhh..... Troy Aikman (who I think is usually fine) and some pansy wimp who made Joe Buck look like a Neanderthal. NTTAWWT.

RockyMountainSteeler
11-01-2009, 11:32 PM
Seriously :wft the NFL really needs to pull their head out, take a deep breath and sit down and look at some of these rules they have instituted over the last decade or so and realize that they are pussifying this game beyond belief.

stlrz d
11-01-2009, 11:58 PM
I think I figured out the difference between the plays, but it still makes no sense. On the 2 Steeler plays that were ruled incomplete, the players were in the end zone when they dropped the pass. On this play, the player caught the ball, crossed the plane, fell down then dropped the ball. They called it a TD. I think it is inconsistent and either all 3 plays should have been a TD or none of them a TD.

I thought that for a split second, but I remembered the rule...then went and found the exact wording...posted above, and here again.

"Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

No matter where you are if you are going to the ground, according to the rule, you have to maintain control throughout.

To answer the questions for Rocky, the announcers didn't say a word and the Packers did not challenge.

RuthlessBurgher
11-02-2009, 12:05 AM
To answer the questions for Rocky, the announcers didn't say a word and the Packers did not challenge.

Interesting. I watched the play live on the Red Zone Channel and was waiting for the incomplete ruling, but then they switched to another game after the catch and one replay. I didn't know if the Packers challenged, if the announcers talked it up after the commercial or whatever. You'd think on scoring plays that are even mildly questionable that you would throw out the red hanky. You'd think that since the game was in Green Bay, the crowd would be booing and egging the coach on to challenge it. I thought your Wisconsin peeps were better football fans than that!

:wft

stlrz d
11-02-2009, 12:48 AM
To answer the questions for Rocky, the announcers didn't say a word and the Packers did not challenge.

Interesting. I watched the play live on the Red Zone Channel and was waiting for the incomplete ruling, but then they switched to another game after the catch and one replay. I didn't know if the Packers challenged, if the announcers talked it up after the commercial or whatever. You'd think on scoring plays that are even mildly questionable that you would throw out the red hanky. You'd think that since the game was in Green Bay, the crowd would be booing and egging the coach on to challenge it. I thought your Wisconsin peeps were better football fans than that!

:wft

1) I'm not from WI...I just live here. They aren't my peeps.

2) The follow the Packers...how good can they be?

:lol:

NJ-STEELER
11-02-2009, 02:06 AM
of the 3 plays. i think the vikes one was prolly closer to a TD then either hines or sweed's. i wonder if the ref was thinking of the old rule on his TD cause he seemed to take 2 steps (football move) before going to the ground

i dont think hines' play was a TD even with the old rule. thought he he the sideline while he didn't have full possession

proudpittsburgher
11-02-2009, 07:41 AM
I'm glad someone started a thread about this. I was going to, but I really didn't care who won this game, so it wasn't worth getting off the couch to get to the computer for. That being said . . . I am more angry that the annoucers didn't say anything, and that the Packers didn't even attempt to challenge it. Whether they would have won or not, it was a momentum turner at the time, and sometimes you have to challenge those out of principal.

stlrz d
11-02-2009, 10:03 AM
of the 3 plays. i think the vikes one was prolly closer to a TD then either hines or sweed's. i wonder if the ref was thinking of the old rule on his TD cause he seemed to take 2 steps (football move) before going to the ground

i dont think hines' play was a TD even with the old rule. thought he he the sideline while he didn't have full possession

Ward took 2 steps, just like Dugan. The difference is Ward maintained possession when he hit the ground and didn't lose it until he rolled out of bounds. Dugan lost possession the instant he hit the ground...in bounds.

By the letter of the rule (again, a bad rule which should go away, imo), Dugan should not have been awarded a TD.

And so it's clear, this is not a "Steelers don't get any breaks" thread because we get plenty. This is a "bad rule must be changed or done away with" thread.

RockyMountainSteeler
11-02-2009, 10:52 AM
I just don't get this one. Knowing that the ref is usually right on the goal line and that is where the camera angle came from I just don't get how the official missed this call. I just want the officiating to be a lot more consistent but then again as frustrated as I get about this I always come to the sad realization that it ain't gonna happen.

ikestops85
11-02-2009, 12:58 PM
I was watching the Dallas game and the same type of play occurred. Roy Williams catches the ball at the 2 yard line and is hit immediately. As he is going down he reaches out for the goal line. The ball hits the ground on the goal line and he loses it. The refs signal TD.

The play gets reviewed (I don't remember if Seattle challenged or it was in the last 2 minutes of the half) so I figure it gets overturned. BUT NOOOO ... the call on the field was confirmed. :wft

This wasn't like he caught the ball and was running. He was hit AS he caught the ball and dropped it when it hit the ground. According to the new way they are calling catches that should be incomplete ... but I guess not. :HeadBanger

I'm so :?

Jom112
11-02-2009, 01:02 PM
I think I figured out the difference between the plays, but it still makes no sense. On the 2 Steeler plays that were ruled incomplete, the players were in the end zone when they dropped the pass. On this play, the player caught the ball, crossed the plane, fell down then dropped the ball. They called it a TD. I think it is inconsistent and either all 3 plays should have been a TD or none of them a TD.

I agree with you. I think the play stood because he caught it outside of the end zone. Similar to what Roy Williams did in the Cowboys game.

The only TD catch that shouldn't have stood was the Mike-Sims Walker TD catch. That was just a bad call by the refs.

And why is this the season for all these close TD's?

steelsnis
11-02-2009, 03:24 PM
I'm pretty sure that once you cross the plane of the goal line with the ball in your possession, the play is over and nothing else matters.

That's why a RB or QB can reach the ball across the goal line and get the ball slapped out of their hands and its not a fumble. Because the ball was "in their possession" when it broke the plane. Anything that happens after that is moot.

Owen Daniels did the same exact thing a few weeks back, crossed the goal line and then lost the ball as he was sliding to the ground. TD.

calmkiller
11-02-2009, 03:54 PM
So the real problem here is the positioning of the player and not so much the continuing possession. Like steelsnis said caught outside the end zone, he crosses the plain with possession. Play over. Hines and Sweed were in the back of the end zone, and therefore had to control the pass coming down. I think that is what this is all about.

RuthlessBurgher
11-02-2009, 04:14 PM
So the real problem here is the positioning of the player and not so much the continuing possession. Like steelsnis said caught outside the end zone, he crosses the plain with possession. Play over. Hines and Sweed were in the back of the end zone, and therefore had to control the pass coming down. I think that is what this is all about.

Why should it make a difference where the receiver is on the field?

If you catch a ball in the end zone, you have to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

If you catch a ball at the 50 yard line, you have to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

But if you catch a ball at the 1 or 2 yard line and fall forward into the end zone, you don't have to maintain possession when you hit the ground in the end zone because it is an automatic TD once it breaks the plane? What? It's only a TD if it is a completed pass. If he loses control of the ball when he hits the ground in the end zone, then it should be ruled incomplete just like Sweed and Hines.

:wft

It's not a question of whether or not the ball crossed the plane of the goal line. It's a question of whether or not it is a catch or an incomplete pass. The referees need to be consistent with their rulings.

ikestops85
11-02-2009, 04:38 PM
So the real problem here is the positioning of the player and not so much the continuing possession. Like steelsnis said caught outside the end zone, he crosses the plain with possession. Play over. Hines and Sweed were in the back of the end zone, and therefore had to control the pass coming down. I think that is what this is all about.

Why should it make a difference where the receiver is on the field?

If you catch a ball in the end zone, you have to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

If you catch a ball at the 50 yard line, you have to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

But if you catch a ball at the 1 or 2 yard line and fall forward into the end zone, you don't have to maintain possession when you hit the ground in the end zone because it is an automatic TD once it breaks the plane? What? It's only a TD if it is a completed pass. If he loses control of the ball when he hits the ground in the end zone, then it should be ruled incomplete just like Sweed and Hines.

:wft

It's not a question of whether or not the ball crossed the plane of the goal line. It's a question of whether or not it is a catch or an incomplete pass. The referees need to be consistent with their rulings.

That's my point exactly. If you have to maintain control of the ball after you hit the ground it shouldn't matter where you are on the field. There doesn't appear to be any consistency on this type of call this year. This is worse than when the receiver had to make a "football move" whatever the hell that is after he caught the ball.

RockyMountainSteeler
11-02-2009, 07:33 PM
For a league that makes up rules so offenses can score more points, this does not fit the NFLs M.O. This rule takes alot of points off the board if you ask me. Just does not make sense. They really need to fix this one in the offseason.

stlrz d
11-02-2009, 09:21 PM
So the real problem here is the positioning of the player and not so much the continuing possession. Like steelsnis said caught outside the end zone, he crosses the plain with possession. Play over. Hines and Sweed were in the back of the end zone, and therefore had to control the pass coming down. I think that is what this is all about.

Why should it make a difference where the receiver is on the field?

If you catch a ball in the end zone, you have to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

If you catch a ball at the 50 yard line, you have to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

But if you catch a ball at the 1 or 2 yard line and fall forward into the end zone, you don't have to maintain possession when you hit the ground in the end zone because it is an automatic TD once it breaks the plane? What? It's only a TD if it is a completed pass. If he loses control of the ball when he hits the ground in the end zone, then it should be ruled incomplete just like Sweed and Hines.

:wft

It's not a question of whether or not the ball crossed the plane of the goal line. It's a question of whether or not it is a catch or an incomplete pass. The referees need to be consistent with their rulings.

Show him what he won!

RuthlessBurgher
11-02-2009, 10:18 PM
So the real problem here is the positioning of the player and not so much the continuing possession. Like steelsnis said caught outside the end zone, he crosses the plain with possession. Play over. Hines and Sweed were in the back of the end zone, and therefore had to control the pass coming down. I think that is what this is all about.

Why should it make a difference where the receiver is on the field?

If you catch a ball in the end zone, you have to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

If you catch a ball at the 50 yard line, you have to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

But if you catch a ball at the 1 or 2 yard line and fall forward into the end zone, you don't have to maintain possession when you hit the ground in the end zone because it is an automatic TD once it breaks the plane? What? It's only a TD if it is a completed pass. If he loses control of the ball when he hits the ground in the end zone, then it should be ruled incomplete just like Sweed and Hines.

:wft

It's not a question of whether or not the ball crossed the plane of the goal line. It's a question of whether or not it is a catch or an incomplete pass. The referees need to be consistent with their rulings.

Show him what he won!

[youtube:315qjlmz]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dx_UJxuQGXo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dx_UJxuQGXo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube:315qjlmz]

stlrz d
11-02-2009, 10:23 PM
Hey Howard, there's your Chinaman...hosting a game show. :lol: