PDA

View Full Version : Holmes' Controversial Drop


Steeldude
01-19-2009, 09:36 AM
i am not sure if there is a threa this already. i didn't notice one.

it appeared to me that holmes made two steps with the ball already secured and then stretched out with the ball crossing the goal line. perhaps it was a fumble and then recovery, but it was a catch.

IMO, he already established the catch by taking the two steps. it's not like his dive to the goal line was an action that involved the catch.

if that's not a catch then you simply can't fumble the ball after a catch. right? if they pass it to moore and he scampers 70 yards and then falls causing the ball to come out, it must be an incomplete pass according to the logic they employed sunday.

Milkman
01-19-2009, 09:49 AM
i am not sure if there is a threa this already. i didn't notice one.

it appeared to me that holmes made two steps with the ball already secured and then stretched out with the ball crossing the goal line. perhaps it was a fumble and then recovery, but it was a catch.

IMO, he already established the catch by taking the two steps. it's not like his dive to the goal line was an action that involved the catch.

if that's not a catch then you simply can't fumble the ball after a catch. right? if they pass it to moore and he scampers 70 yards and then falls causing the ball to come out, it must be an incomplete pass according to the logic they employed sunday.


/agree

peterroach
01-19-2009, 09:55 AM
+1
The officiating in that game was ridiculous. The next play was clearly pass interference as well. When a defender has his arm inside the receiver's impending him from raising it, you have to call that, every time.

If you're not going to call that, what the heck was the call on McFadden?

Finally, my favorite, roughing the kicker? This was clearly an attempt to make up for past calls.

Hapa
01-19-2009, 10:10 AM
It really looked like two steps forward, but I think the rule is, if you catch that ball as you are going to the ground, which I guess he was, then you have to maintain control.

But who really cares now right? The refs know the rules better than us anyway.

drizze99
01-19-2009, 10:16 AM
The officials were TERRIBLE last night. I am not sure what game they were watching. He CLEARLY caught the ball, took 2 steps, dove and placed his hand on the ground to make certain he wasn't down until he reached the goal line.

I would love to hear an explanation from that ref of when it stops being a catch and it become part of the play...

peterroach
01-19-2009, 10:19 AM
It really looked like two steps forward, but I think the rule is, if you catch that ball as you are going to the ground, which I guess he was, then you have to maintain control.

But who really cares now right? The refs know the rules better than us anyway.

That's not quite the rule. It's true that the ball must be controlled and remain in possession throughout as you're going to the ground but that's only on the initial reception. Because he caught the ball and made a "football related move" (steps forward), the catch should have been ruled as complete. Then he is tackled and I'm not sure whether he lost the ball before or after his knee hit the ground but in any case, he was either down by contact or fumbled it and recovered it in the endzone for a TD.

section514
01-19-2009, 10:37 AM
i am just happy that we won, because the city of Pittsburgh would have been zebra hunting if we lost

BubbyBrister
01-19-2009, 10:38 AM
100% agree with peter.
those are the only two possible explanations, imo

slippy
01-19-2009, 10:38 AM
at least harrison finally got a holding call for us.

CPanther95
01-19-2009, 10:39 AM
The "football related move" BS was ridiculous and way too subjective. That's why they re-wrote the rule this year to eliminate the "must make a football move" part of the rule. Unfortunately. they changed it to the requirement that if a receiver is contacted by the defender while going down, or causing him to go down, he must maintain possession even after contact with the ground.

They will have to revisit that rule this off season. The rule didn't clarify what to do if the receiver takes multiple steps (I counted 3) "while going down". Technically the call was correct, but it wasn't the intent of the rule to call that an incomplete. 3 steps (or 2) with possession should absolutely constitute a reception regardless of any other factor.

... and I believe they never intended the new rule to contradict that. You can't really blame them, not many receivers can continue to run while in a prone position. :)

Steelercrazy
01-19-2009, 10:43 AM
This is the only place I feel like I'm understood. My first thought was the "football move".

It will be very interesting to see who's officiating in the Super Bowl.

Please not Ed Hocules!!! Unless he's going to rule in our favor, of course.


:tt::tt::tt::tt:

revefsreleets
01-19-2009, 10:43 AM
That play would have busted the game wide open, and, as such, could not be allowed to go the Steelers way.

plenewken
01-19-2009, 10:56 AM
My opinion is that there are way too many rules in football and refs need to have PhDs to officiate a game. It's getting totally ridiculous.

BlastFurnace
01-19-2009, 10:59 AM
My opinion is that there are way too many rules in football and refs need to have PhDs to officiate a game. It's getting totally ridiculous.

I have always maintained that the game of football was a better game in the 70's when a fumble was a fumble, a catch was a catch, and roughing was part of the game.

scsteeler
01-19-2009, 11:03 AM
It should have been a TD for Holmes period! He pulled away from the defender and dived into the end zone and the ball hit the ground on the way down. I just hope in the Super Bowl we don't get bad calls like that. I have just come to expect the unexpected.

vasteeler
01-19-2009, 11:10 AM
I always thought the ground couldnt cause a fumble,but as some stated previously i guess they made up for it with that roughing the kicker call

plenewken
01-19-2009, 11:10 AM
I have always maintained that the game of football was a better game in the 70's when a fumble was a fumble, a catch was a catch, and roughing was part of the game.

Egg zachary! You have now 5 guys discussing on the field before making a decision and then a coach can challenge it. I even saw last night the 2 coaches throwing the red flag after Holmes' catch! When will the insanity stop?

tony hipchest
01-19-2009, 11:18 AM
i am not sure if there is a threa this already. i didn't notice one.

it appeared to me that holmes made two steps with the ball already secured and then stretched out with the ball crossing the goal line. perhaps it was a fumble and then recovery, but it was a catch.

IMO, he already established the catch by taking the two steps. it's not like his dive to the goal line was an action that involved the catch.

if that's not a catch then you simply can't fumble the ball after a catch. right? if they pass it to moore and he scampers 70 yards and then falls causing the ball to come out, it must be an incomplete pass according to the logic they employed sunday.spot on.

i thought it was three steps. and the ground cant cause a fumble, right?

total BS call. i was gonna go balistic if that cost us the game.

piss poor officiating all the way around (even with the 15 yder mitch berger drew).

revefsreleets
01-19-2009, 11:19 AM
I always thought the ground couldnt cause a fumble,but as some stated previously i guess they made up for it with that roughing the kicker call

That roughing call had a lot of weight on it:

A) No call for the punch to our player earlier in the game, which was blatant unneeccessary roughness.
B) BS call on Kemo for MUCH less
C) No call on two illegal blocks on Leonhards big return, without which NO WAY do the rats get a TD
D) Santo's cleat TD catch

So they made up 5 calls against with one our way.

XxKnightxX
01-19-2009, 11:29 AM
It really looked like two steps forward, but I think the rule is, if you catch that ball as you are going to the ground, which I guess he was, then you have to maintain control.

But who really cares now right? The refs know the rules better than us anyway.

It was the right call, same thing Happened on the 05 Redskins Bucs Playoff game, idell Sheppard caught it in the endzone but as he was going down he dropped the ball.

Good call, but If Santonio would of played Possesion receiver we would of been at the 1, but yeah who cares

WERE GOING TO THE SUPER BOWL:tt03::tt03::tt03::tt03:

tyler289
01-19-2009, 11:31 AM
Thank God that head official is retiring after last night's game. He was awful.

MDSteel15
01-19-2009, 11:36 AM
As far as I am concerned that shit was a touchdown!!!