All Forums | NFL Betting Forum

Did the refs forget a Rule?

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 744
Posts: 27
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 5069
Posted: #1
what ever happened to the rule " the ground can not cause a fumble"?
 
IMO that was CLEARLY a catch. As he dove forward to try to advance the ball, the ball hit the ground and that caused the ball to come loose.
 
Its funny to see how these refs make some of these calls. There are too many inconsistant calls in the NFL now a days....
 
Did anyone else see that CATCH any differently?
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2008
Posts: 3001
Posted: #2
i really thought it was no question a catch, but what do i know. shit happens. still got 3 so not too bad.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #3
i have Pitt but that clearly was not a catch. they changed the rule not long ago to say that if you catch it and then go down, you have to retain control of the ball after you hit the ground.  holmes clearly did not.  it has nothing to do with the ground causing a fumble.  

and the rule that the ground cannot cause a fumble is overstated and inaccurate.  the ground can cause a fumble if the runner is not down.  the ground can't cause a fumble on a tackle because the runner is down as soon as he hits the ground.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 5069
Posted: #4
did the refs mention the word "catch" when giving the ruling after the review?
 
Can someone with a recording check that out when you have a chance? I just find it funny how these rules are getting changed from game to game, official to official.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2007
Posts: 7424
Posted: #5
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2007
Posts: 1601
Posted: #6
what happened to breaking the plane of the endzone and a td being scored making the play dead ? he dropped the ball AFTER he broke the front plane of the EZ
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 5069
Posted: #7
My view on the ground causing a fumble would look like this...
 
Lets say a player is running  towards the endzone and gets tripped at the 5 yard line, tries to dive towards the endzone with both hands on the side of the football, and the heart of the ball hits the ground first ( before a knee, arm etc..) and comes loose and rolls around. Shouldn't the ball be considered down at the point of contact with the ground? Doesn't matter if he maintains position of the ball he already had it before the dive.
 
IMO that was pretty much the situation that just happened. he clearly had position as he caught the ball with 2 hands, took 2 steps towards the endzone, dove and reached for the line with one hand to get an extention, the heart of the ball hit the ground and caused the ball to jar loose. he caught the ball around the 4,5 yard line and the ball came losse at the 6 inch line, how is that not a catch? did he juggle the ball towards the goal line?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 5069
Posted: #8
Quote Originally Posted by DODGEpicker:

what happened to breaking the plane of the endzone and a td being scored making the play dead ? he dropped the ball AFTER he broke the front plane of the EZ

It looked like he crossed the plane, but after the reviews he landed about 6 inches short, and bounced over the line. The ball landed short of the goal line....

 

And Parzero theres no need for some 5 year old faces, thank you. Last time i checked we were all over 10 years old..

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #9
the answer to your example is yes, because the catch has been made and the runner is running and if he is tripped, as soon as he hits the ground, he's down.  it's difference on a catch where the receiver goes down after the catch.  the new rule is that the receiver who goes down after the catch must retain possession of the ball after hitting the ground.  it's not a fumble if he doesn't because it's not a completed catch.  it's questionable because he took two steps but the fact that he was going down trumps that and he must retain possession if he goes down.  
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2007
Posts: 620
Posted: #10
He had three feet and a hand down before he lost possession. They will apologize tomorrow for that awful overrule
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #11
you guys are still missing the point.  it's not a matter of being down and whether it's a fumble, it's a matter of the receiver going down after the catch and not keeping possession after hitting the ground.  he did takes steps after the catch but he did so as he was going down.  it's not that hard-- catch - then go to the ground - then hit the ground- then lose control of the ball - then incomplete pass.  

there can be a question of taking steps first but holmes was basically horizontal and going down after the catch so he needed to keep possession of the ball after he hit the ground.  

one more post and i'm going to start charging for teaching football.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 1264
Posted: #12
The NFL has long ago lost any credibility with the officiating. They are worse than the NBA anymore.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 5069
Posted: #13
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

the answer to your example is yes, because the catch has been made and the runner is running and if he is tripped, as soon as he hits the ground, he's down.  it's difference on a catch where the receiver goes down after the catch.  the new rule is that the receiver who goes down after the catch must retain possession of the ball after hitting the ground.  it's not a fumble if he doesn't because it's not a completed catch.  it's questionable because he took two steps but the fact that he was going down trumps that and he must retain possession if he goes down.  

 

So now your taking away a great catch and an outstanding ATHLETIC play by some rule that had no meaning in this certain circumstance. I think the rule they stated is for when a player makes a diving catch ( and is unable to attempt a step), he must land with possession of the ball for a catch.

In this certain play the reciever caught the ball, took at least 2 steps, placed a hand on the ground to gain a few extra inches on his dive and then landed. They ruled it was an incomplete pass. IMO if a runner is going down and takes steps as he is going down, you have to give him credit for that. Have you ever tried to move forward while falling? Pretty damn tough to take a step let alone 2+.

 

My whole rant is how refs make these rules based off plays in the past. He had the right Lingo, but for a completly different play.

What would have happned if Balt ( the first falg that got thrown, from what i saw) had the challenge first and was able to challenge the spot of the ball?

 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2006
Posts: 3295
Posted: #14
yep.. bad all.. wont matter Steelers so much better!
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 2241
Posted: #15
Fucking Refs got their money on those peices of shit Ravens!!!
 
 
He did make a football play/move advancing the ball, took two steps!!!!!  Had a hand on the ground going for the endzone, oh ground can't cause a fucking fumble!!!!!!
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 19156
Posted: #16
You would have to be blind to call that a no catch. What the Hell were they seeing.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 2241
Posted: #17
Nothing is worse that the Fix / Refs in the Association!!!!!! 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 5069
Posted: #18
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

you guys are still missing the point.  it's not a matter of being down and whether it's a fumble, it's a matter of the receiver going down after the catch and not keeping possession after hitting the ground.  he did takes steps after the catch but he did so as he was going down.  it's not that hard-- catch - then go to the ground - then hit the ground- then lose control of the ball - then incomplete pass.  

there can be a question of taking steps first but holmes was basically horizontal and going down after the catch so he needed to keep possession of the ball after he hit the ground.  

one more post and i'm going to start charging for teaching football.

 

So doesn't that mean he had possession of the football? or was he juggling the ball as he took those steps?

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #19
biggame, i agree it was a great play by holmes and an athletic move getting it in or to the end zone but the rule is the rule.  

i'm not sure what your last question is but that was baltimore's challenge that overturned the holmes catch.  if your question is if pitt was the only team to throw the challenge flag assuming it was a catch and challenging whether holmes got in the end zone and the refs decided it wasn't even a catch, the refs can make the ruling based on what they saw even if it wasn't the intended focus of the challenge.  

that'll be $10.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #20
Quote Originally Posted by BigGame90:

 

So doesn't that mean he had possession of the football? or was he juggling the ball as he took those steps?


it means he had possession of the football initially but not all the way through going to and hitting the ground.  he needs to keep possession before, while and immediately after hitting the ground if he goes to the ground after the initial catch.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2007
Posts: 3868
Posted: #21
Ground doesnt cause fumbles, it causes incompletions.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 19156
Posted: #22
But Club didn`t he have two feet down? Sure looked like he had possesion.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 19156
Posted: #23
Just to add. What a horrible call on that kickoff in the Zona game.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 5069
Posted: #24
Alright i saw possession of the ball. He caught the ball with 2 hands, and then transfered the ball to his leading hand ( by that i mean the hand that has the greatest chance to reach the endzone based on his body position). Anywhere in those 2 maybe more steps did the ball ever look like it was falling down? The GROUND caused the ball to come loose after he had possession of the ball. How does someone go from catching the ball on the 4-5 yard line, get the ball to the 6 inch yard line, by taking 2 steps and a dive and yet the ball was never in his possession? did the ball happen to fly to the goal line from the 5 yard line?
 
ANd that rule is a rule for a diving catch and the feet are unable to move forward.    Some one mentioned it above, he caught the ball and made an athletic move to advance the football while he had possession. That is what the refs left out.
 
This play he clearly had the ball in his possession ( meaning the ball was not falling towards the ground as he clearly transfered the ball from 2 hands to his lead hand)  If he never had possession when he went to transfer the ball from 2 hands to 1 you would have seen the ball falling towards the ground, but yet you saw his hand advancing the ball to its furthest point as his entire body was in air to achieve the maxium yardege on the field.
 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 5069
Posted: #25
And Club ill have my refund and then send my bill for 100, sorry im not cheap.. haha
All Forums | NFL Betting Forum
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.