Vegas called in the Eagles win

[Slapstick]

Ertz’ TD definitely hit the ground...

Clement was the one who might have bobbled it but held on...

[skyhawk]

Hit the ground during and after complete control. It was not loose. Does the ground cause the fumble/bobble? I miss the old days of letting them make great catches and not pickin it apart in super duper slo mo

[feltdizz]

Hit the ground during and after complete control. It was not loose. Does the ground cause the fumble/bobble? I miss the old days of letting them make great catches and not pickin it apart in super duper slo mo

yeah, I think most of us miss those old days when a catch was a catch. Now it's slowed down to the point where any movement of the ball is called a bobble. To me a bobble is when you are actually bobbling the ball. Gotta have some wiggle room to allow for physics to play out when catching a football.

[Slapstick]

Hit the ground during and after complete control. It was not loose. Does the ground cause the fumble/bobble? I miss the old days of letting them make great catches and not pickin it apart in super duper slo mo

You could say the exact same thing about James' overturned TD catch...which is why this is so problematic...

[Northern_Blitz]

You could say the exact same thing about James' overturned TD catch...which is why this is so problematic...

For James, the ground caused the incompletion. It did not cause a fumble.

[Slapstick]

For James, the ground caused the “bobble”...

The review for Ertz was not reviewing for a fumble, but for whether or not he maintained control while going to the ground...

They both did...

[Shawn]

Ertz’ TD definitely hit the ground...

Clement was the one who might have bobbled it but held on...

, after he became the runner the ball hit the ground after crossing the goal line which is a touch down.

[feltdizz]

, after he became the runner the ball hit the ground after crossing the goal line which is a touch down.

nope... sorry. By definition and interpretation this shouldn't have been a catch. Check out the explanation of why this ellington catch and fumble was ruled an incompletion. While I think these are both catches you simply can't conclude that Ertz wasn't also going to the ground IMO.

But on instant replay, the ruling was reversed to an incomplete pass. In the league’s weekly officiating video, NFL V.P. of Officiating Al Riveron explained why he reversed it, and said it doesn’t matter how many steps a receiver takes with control of the ball: If he’s going to the ground while he’s taking all those steps, he needs to maintain control when he hits the groundWhile


honestly, I think the NFL just doesn't know WTF a catch is right now. IMO Ertz is also going to the ground when he caught this pass.

[Northern_Blitz]

nope... sorry. By definition and interpretation this shouldn't have been a catch. Check out the explanation of why this ellington catch and fumble was ruled an incompletion. While I think these are both catches you simply can't conclude that Ertz wasn't also going to the ground IMO.

But on instant replay, the ruling was reversed to an incomplete pass. In the league’s weekly officiating video, NFL V.P. of Officiating Al Riveron explained why he reversed it, and said it doesn’t matter how many steps a receiver takes with control of the ball: If he’s going to the ground while he’s taking all those steps, he needs to maintain control when he hits the groundWhile


honestly, I think the NFL just doesn't know WTF a catch is right now. IMO Ertz is also going to the ground when he caught this pass.

This one is close and I would have ruled it a completion and a fumble (for whatever that's worth).

They ruled that he was falling to the ground when he caught it because he was off balance at the time. Because he's off balance when he gets it, it's somewhere between the Jones incompletion (dove before the ball) and the Ertz TD (received it in control, took many steps, then dove).

It's an edge case in the new rule and part of the reason the rule is still subjective (despite being way less subjective than the old rule).

I think that if they changed the rule to include "if you take N steps before falling to the ground = catch, less than N steps = incomplete". That's something that they could more easily check on replay. But then, we'd be arguing about what counts as a "step" as we watch plays in slo-mo.

As long as we have replay and expect every call to be correct, we will always be lawyering about the rules.

There are too many replays now and most of them are still coin flip type calls even after the review.

I'm starting to think that the game would be better with no replays at all and us going back to the idea that refs make mistakes in real time and teams have to deal with it.

I think that we should at least go back to only having 3 coaches challenges and from the booth in the last 2 minutes...actually, I'd even eliminate the auto-reviews in the last 2 minutes. Let coaches choose between calling a time out and preserving a replay challenge.

[feltdizz]

IMO I don’t mind the replays. My issue is needing irrefutable evidence.. seems like these last few years Al has been over ruling refs without clear evidence.

I thought all those catch’s were legit. What’s funny is Al made a video explaining why JJ didn’t catch the ball while saying “when JJ caught the ball he was going to the ground...”

Umm what?

[Slapstick]

This one is close and I would have ruled it a completion and a fumble (for whatever that's worth).

They ruled that he was falling to the ground when he caught it because he was off balance at the time. Because he's off balance when he gets it, it's somewhere between the Jones incompletion (dove before the ball) and the Ertz TD (received it in control, took many steps, then dove).

It's an edge case in the new rule and part of the reason the rule is still subjective (despite being way less subjective than the old rule).

I think that if they changed the rule to include "if you take N steps before falling to the ground = catch, less than N steps = incomplete". That's something that they could more easily check on replay. But then, we'd be arguing about what counts as a "step" as we watch plays in slo-mo.

As long as we have replay and expect every call to be correct, we will always be lawyering about the rules.

There are too many replays now and most of them are still coin flip type calls even after the review.

I'm starting to think that the game would be better with no replays at all and us going back to the idea that refs make mistakes in real time and teams have to deal with it.

I think that we should at least go back to only having 3 coaches challenges and from the booth in the last 2 minutes...actually, I'd even eliminate the auto-reviews in the last 2 minutes. Let coaches choose between calling a time out and preserving a replay challenge.

Just go back to two feet down and one knee equalling two feet...who cares if they drop it out of bounds...also, that increases the likelihood of a fumble that a defense can recover...

[Northern_Blitz]

Just go back to two feet down and one knee equalling two feet...who cares if they drop it out of bounds...also, that increases the likelihood of a fumble that a defense can recover...

I like that it would make it very objective.

I don't like that there would be no way for a defender to separate a receiver from the ball in the end-zone or on the sideline. Once it hits their hands in either of those cases it's a catch (and a TD in the endzone). I used to hate it when a player would score on a play like that and it didn't matter than they dropped the ball at the end of the play. Maybe I'm in the minority there.

[Slapstick]

I like that it would make it very objective.

I don't like that there would be no way for a defender to separate a receiver from the ball in the end-zone or on the sideline. Once it hits their hands in either of those cases it's a catch (and a TD in the endzone). I used to hate it when a player would score on a play like that and it didn't matter than they dropped the ball at the end of the play. Maybe I'm in the minority there.

I don’t love it, but I like Al Riveron’s arbitrary determinations even less...