PDA

View Full Version : Pass to Lee Evans - TD?



SteelAbility
01-22-2012, 08:08 PM
From what I saw, Evans caught the ball got one foot down, then the other foot down with control and possession. A split second later, the defender knocked the ball out of his hands. There was no video evidence suggesting Evans was/would/could bobble that ball.

If I understand the rule correctly, at the moment Evans had possession and two feet, the TD was scored. The ball came loose but that was due to the defender hitting it, not Evans losing it. The rule awards a score for 1 infinity-eth of a second of possession/control in the end zone.

Any opinions?

DukieBoy
01-22-2012, 08:12 PM
From what I saw, Evans caught the ball got one foot down, then the other foot down with control and possession. A split second later, the defender knocked the ball out of his hands. There was no video evidence suggesting Evans was/would/could bobble that ball.

If I understand the rule correctly, at the moment Evans had possession and two feet, the TD was scored. The ball came loose but that was due to the defender hitting it, not Evans losing it. The rule awards a score for 1 infinity-eth of a second of possession/control in the end zone.

Any opinions?


Per the rules as I understand them, I thought they called it correctly.

SteelAbility
01-22-2012, 08:17 PM
From what I saw, Evans caught the ball got one foot down, then the other foot down with control and possession. A split second later, the defender knocked the ball out of his hands. There was no video evidence suggesting Evans was/would/could bobble that ball.

If I understand the rule correctly, at the moment Evans had possession and two feet, the TD was scored. The ball came loose but that was due to the defender hitting it, not Evans losing it. The rule awards a score for 1 infinity-eth of a second of possession/control in the end zone.

Any opinions?


Per the rules as I understand them, I thought they called it correctly.

Why? Is my understanding of the rules there incomplete?

DrCalculus
01-22-2012, 08:17 PM
At the very least you'd have thought the replay official would have called time and looked at it. Not that I am disappointed by the outcome. Second best thing to the Steelers getting in to the SB is the Ravens coming that close and then having it RIPPED out from under them. Go cry on the sidelines, Ray Ray.

Steelgal
01-22-2012, 08:23 PM
So, if Brady would have fumbled the ball AFTER it crossed the goal line when he leaped, would it have still been a TD?? I swear, you need a PhD to understand all the rules they have now.

DukieBoy
01-22-2012, 08:31 PM
What I have seen is that receivers need to maintain possession of the bal through the entire play. We've seen several apparent TD's overruled this year when receivers have lost the ball after possessing it for longer than Lee Evans did, when the "catch" became dislodged by the ground or by falling to the ground.

I thought, on the replay, that Evans did not have secure possession of the ball at any point before the defender knocked the ball loose.

It does seem to be a problem that the rules are so complicated, sometimes seem contradictory (as with ball carriers breaking the plane and then losing the ball vs the rules for receivers in the EZ), etc. So much seems open to perception and interpretation, and this seems to be one of those cases.

fezziwig
01-22-2012, 08:37 PM
To me the receiver relaxed before the official had time to call it a touchdown. I too thought it would have been viewed but, I think they had the play called correctly.

I thought it very smart not to call a time out for the missed fieldgoal. Too much of a rush for the offense, holder/kicker and it paid off.

BradshawsHairdresser
01-22-2012, 08:51 PM
It was called correctly according to the rules as they are currently constituted.

However...I think the rules need to be CHANGED. If you can score a TD as a runner merely by breaking the plane with the ball, without any part of your body touching down in the end zone, then why is it different when it comes to a reception?

It's called a "TOUCHDOWN"...I would change the rule to say that in EVERY case, you have to get your body into the end zone with possession of the ball in order to score six.

NJ-STEELER
01-22-2012, 08:57 PM
It was called correctly according to the rules as they are currently constituted.

However...I think the rules need to be CHANGED. If you can score a TD as a runner merely by breaking the plane with the ball, without any part of your body touching down in the end zone, then why is it different when it comes to a reception?

It's called a "TOUCHDOWN"...I would change the rule to say that in EVERY case, you have to get your body into the end zone with possession of the ball in order to score six.


cause it needs to be in possession first (on a pass) before it could be a TD.

a runner already has possession of the ball

ikestops85
01-22-2012, 08:59 PM
In the olden days ( 5 or 7 years ago) that would have been a TD. Now a receiver either has to hold the ball "through" the catch or make a "football move", whatever the hell that is. I don't think Evans fulfilled the football move portion.

NJ-STEELER
01-22-2012, 09:00 PM
i dont have the game on DVR anymore but am reading that the 2nd foot was not down

and they would have lost the challange if they threw the red flag

aggiebones
01-22-2012, 09:06 PM
If you CROSS the goal with the ball in possession, it doesn't matter what happens after that.

But if you throw it over, then a different set of rules apply. You must maintain possession after the catch and do a full dance.

NJ-STEELER
01-22-2012, 09:29 PM
slowed down the replay at the halftime highlights

looks like ball is coming out/swatted away right before the 2nd foot hits down

a lot closer then i thought

SteelAbility
01-22-2012, 09:30 PM
If you CROSS the goal with the ball in possession, it doesn't matter what happens after that.

But if you throw it over, then a different set of rules apply. You must maintain possession after the catch and do a full dance.

But you may be flagged for that. :)

SteelerNation1
01-22-2012, 10:24 PM
Anyone remember in 2007 in Arizona. WR Jeremy urban had a td against us. It was very similar to this play. He had possession for a tenth of a second. My nephew and I still talk about it to this day.

winwithd
01-22-2012, 10:34 PM
Did Santonio ever get both feet down when he caught the last minute one in Baltimore several years ago? I know he maintained control to the ground but it was not totally clear that the ball had even broken the plain on that one. I think we won it 13-9. Are the rules different from then?

When I saw the one today live I thought it was not a TD because the ball came out before the second foot hit the ground.

Steel Life
01-22-2012, 10:35 PM
Ball was out before the second foot came down...simple call, good call - no matter what the Ratbirds conspiratists think.

hawaiiansteel
01-22-2012, 11:33 PM
League defends decision not to review Evans non-catch

Posted by Mike Florio on January 22, 2012

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/leeevans1.jpg?w=250

Shortly before Ravens kicker Billy Cundiff did his best Gary Anderson impersonation (to the chagrin of Matt Birk), Ravens receiver Lee Evans had the ball in his hands, in the end zone. But Patriots defensive back Sterling Moore knocked the ball out of Evans’ hands, and the ruling on the field was that the would-be touchdown pass was incomplete.

Though it wasn’t a scoring play, fewer than two minutes remained in the game. Thus, the decision (or not) to review the play was to be initiated by the replay assistant in the booth. Even though the slow-motion angle shown by CBS seemed to suggest that it may have been a catch, the replay assistant didn’t instruct referee Alberto Riveron to take a look via the on-field portable TV on wheels.

As to whether a catch was made, the standard is simple. From Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 3: “If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.”

There’s no Calvin Johnson component. No requirement of a football move. Possession plus two feet down equals a catch, and a touchdown.

So why didn’t the replay assistant direct Riveron to take another look? Absent indisputable visual evidence that the call on the field was correct, the replay assistant must tell the referee to look for indisputable visual evidence to overturn it.

The league disagrees. “The ruling on the field of an incomplete pass was confirmed by the Instant Replay assistant, correctly, and as a result, there was no need to stop the game,” the league said in a statement forwarded to PFT by spokesman Michael Signora. “The receiver did not get his second foot down in the end zone with possession, and as a result, it was an incomplete pass.”

Former V.P. of officiating and current FOX rules analyst Mike Pereira expressed a similar sentiment via text message to PFT. “Clearly not a catch,” Pereira said. “Ball coming out before second foot clearly down. . . . No need to review it because it was clearly incomplete.”

But where’s the harm in taking a look at the play? The left foot may have been down a nanosecond before the ball was dislodged. Why not have Riveron decide whether or not that was the case? Moreover, a different camera angle may have shown that Evans had the ball before his left foot previously left the ground. (There’s no doubt that the right foot was down while Evans had the ball.)

It could be that the replay assistant erred on the side of not giving Riveron a chance to make what could have been another Bill Leavy-style error. Either way, under the league’s standard for initiating a booth review, we think a booth review should have been initiated. And if it had been initiated, Riveron would have been faced with a decision that wouldn’t have been quite as easy as the league seems to think it would have been.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... non-catch/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/22/league-defends-decision-not-to-review-evans-non-catch/)

Steel Life
01-22-2012, 11:42 PM
It's this kind of thinking (that espoused by Florio & Co.) that was at the root of all the whining when we beat the Cards & there were those that wanted a replay (if not a federal investigation) on the fumble & subsequent recovery to end the game. Apparently a Ref making the right call - right away - isn't good enough for those who want to "lawyer up the game. The Refs & NFL aren't wrong here...the whiners are.

chiken
01-23-2012, 12:07 AM
Receiver has to maintain possession throughout - The ball cannot hit the ground.

but I Thought all scoring plays were reviewed upstairs?

hawaiiansteel
01-23-2012, 12:13 AM
Receiver has to maintain possession throughout - The ball cannot hit the ground.

but I Thought all scoring plays were reviewed upstairs?


it wasn't ruled a scoring play...

ikestops85
01-23-2012, 12:14 AM
Receiver has to maintain possession throughout - The ball cannot hit the ground.

but I Thought all scoring plays were reviewed upstairs?

They are but that wasn't a scoring play.

MaxAMillion
01-23-2012, 12:37 AM
I thought the call was correct. Of course you always have fans who want to blame officials for losses. It is a way to make an excuse so that people can feel better.

Steelgal
01-23-2012, 09:19 AM
Mel Kiper was just on Mike and Mike and wouldn't let that call go. The Rats homer that he is, didn't understand why it wasn't even looked at by the replay officials.

feltdizz
01-23-2012, 09:24 AM
I don't think it was a TD but why not review it?

Mister Pittsburgh
01-23-2012, 09:24 AM
I didn't think he got the second foot down

fezziwig
01-23-2012, 09:33 AM
If that was a Steeler we would mostly think we got robbed but, I think the call was correct. The guy didn't lock onto that ball and the defender did what, he was coached to do. Knock the ball out.

steelblood
01-23-2012, 01:39 PM
If you CROSS the goal with the ball in possession, it doesn't matter what happens after that.

But if you throw it over, then a different set of rules apply. You must maintain possession after the catch and do a full dance.

More or less. But, if you catch the ball just in front of the goal line and then cross as two feet hit the ground, but still lose possession just after crossing and before making a football move or coming to the ground, it is not a catch (I believe).

This whole football move thing is not what we need to be leaving to a bunch of guys who never made a football move in their lives to rule on. Waaaaay to Gray.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
01-23-2012, 02:59 PM
The ruling on the field of an incomplete pass was confirmed by the Instant Replay assistant, correctly

Per the NFL the play was reviewed upstairs. So, the refs called it incomplete, the replay man upstairs ruled it incomplete, but for some reason we need a third governing body to rule it incomplete before we can go on?

Ghost
01-23-2012, 03:25 PM
The lesson here, as always, don't put the ball on the ground and you remove all doubt. Once it comes out, you are at the mercy of a mysteriously vague rule book. Hold on to the damn ball!

phillyesq
01-23-2012, 03:29 PM
Seemed like the right ruling to me, and from what I've seen, even most ravens fans seem to agree.