PDA

View Full Version : Was it a catch?


Morgan
02-07-2009, 12:30 PM
Player is well defended in the endzone, goes up to catch the ball high. Defender's hand disrupts the ball a little bit. Player bobbles the ball around a little bit on the way down, feet hit the ground and he twists down, continuing to fall. Player doesn't get his hands under the ball and as he falls down face and chest down, the ball touches the ground under the player.

Is that a TD or an incomplete pass?

Mags87
02-07-2009, 12:56 PM
Player is well defended in the endzone, goes up to catch the ball high. Defender's hand disrupts the ball a little bit. Player bobbles the ball around a little bit on the way down, feet hit the ground and he twists down, continuing to fall. Player doesn't get his hands under the ball and as he falls down face and chest down, the ball touches the ground under the player.

Is that a TD or an incomplete pass?

sounds like something that happened recently...

7SteelGal43
02-07-2009, 12:57 PM
I'll go with incomplete pass, Morgan

Steelersfanforlife
02-07-2009, 01:11 PM
incomplete

Morgan
02-07-2009, 01:27 PM
That's sorta what I was thinking on Fitzgerald's first TD catch. Looked to me like it should have been 4th down. It is what it is....

xFreeWord420x
02-07-2009, 01:30 PM
Player is well defended in the endzone, goes up to catch the ball high. Defender's hand disrupts the ball a little bit. Player bobbles the ball around a little bit on the way down, feet hit the ground and he twists down, continuing to fall. Player doesn't get his hands under the ball and as he falls down face and chest down, the ball touches the ground under the player.

Is that a TD or an incomplete pass?

That is what the Referees call "Entrapment". It is an incomplete pass, and that is EXACTLY what happened on Fitzgerald's catch. I was flipping out when they didn't even bother to review it!

lilyoder6
02-07-2009, 01:32 PM
yeah thats an incomplete pass... he never had "control" of the ball

Morgan
02-07-2009, 01:39 PM
it's always nice to have ammo when they're throwing those "that wasn't roughing the passer" lobs... I agree, it wasn't roughing the passer. But I think bad calls that give your team points are worse than a few yards. Just saying.

CPanther95
02-07-2009, 01:59 PM
I saw the contact with the ground as incidental. It appeared to me that he had sufficient control before he landed.

goLERS
02-07-2009, 05:47 PM
I saw the contact with the ground as incidental. It appeared to me that he had sufficient control before he landed.

If that is sufficient control then what the hell was the call on Santonio's catch and reach for the endzone in the AFCCG? Seems to me if you catch the ball run a yard and reach the ball out for the line that constitutes more control then what Fitz did.

Morgan
02-07-2009, 05:56 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. "Sufficient control" without running, to ME at least, means you don't let the ball hit the ground. To me, it's EXACTLY like the Tyree catch in SB 42. If that ball had touched the ground even a little bit it was incomplete. Same with this one....I've watched it in super slo motion over and over, the only reason the ball stopped moving was that it hit the ground and he landed on it. It started high, and ended up mid section on Fitz's body.

I don't mind that they got a break on a call. It happens. Good teams find ways to overcome bad calls. I only care because it's nice to show that the balance wasn't as off as some might suggest.

CPanther95
02-07-2009, 06:00 PM
If that is sufficient control then what the hell was the call on Santonio's catch and reach for the endzone in the AFCCG? Seems to me if you catch the ball run a yard and reach the ball out for the line that constitutes more control then what Fitz did.

It's the stupid rules - but I think both were correct. The Fitz call was fine - the Holmes catch in the AFCCG should prompt a rule revision. Controlling the ball all the way to the ground was never intended to supercede (or shouldn't have been) taking 3 steps with possesion on the way down.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-08-2009, 01:09 AM
Yeah, I just rewatched that play and I have to say you are right. It looked like when Fitzgerald went to the ground, the ball hit and continued to move until he ended up trapping it near his legs.

The ball was moving when he hit the ground and therefore should have been incomplete. Tomlin should have thrown the flag.......it was incomplete.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-08-2009, 01:11 AM
It's the stupid rules - but I think both were correct. The Fitz call was fine - the Holmes catch in the AFCCG should prompt a rule revision. Controlling the ball all the way to the ground was never intended to supercede (or shouldn't have been) taking 3 steps with possesion on the way down.

To me the differenct is that Holmes made a football move by putting his left hand down and trying to propel himself into the endzone rather than just going down. That constitutes possession.

Fitzgerald hit the ground with the nose of the ball and it slid around without his making any kind of move. It looked like it was incomplete.

drizze99
02-08-2009, 08:35 AM
I saw the contact with the ground as incidental. It appeared to me that he had sufficient control before he landed.

You are either blind or need to watch the play again. Fitz did not have "full control" of that ball before the BALL hit the ground. I have watched that play SEVERAL times and it is easily seen that it should have been RED flagged by Tomlin.

In the AFCCG, the Santo call was BLOWN. That was a catch by definition. I would like to ask the ref when a catch stops being a catch and when it starts becoming a "play". You can easily see a catch, control, 2-1/2 steps, & fall braced by left hand. The ground caused the fumble which we all know it can not do. It should have been a Steelers TD.

SC Steeler Steve
02-08-2009, 08:43 AM
That pass was incomplete, the problem I had was that we didnt throw the red flag. I believe it would have been overturned. I have it DVR'd, and I have slowed it down several times. I dont believe he ever had total control, and the ball did hit the ground.

Now on the other hand, had we challenged and lost (which I don't really think we would have lost) then it would have costs us an important Timeout. Or would the TO really been that important with the course of events on that last drive?

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-08-2009, 09:19 AM
we won...period.

The way the refs have been this season I doubt that would have been overturned, but thats just me!

CPanther95
02-08-2009, 10:07 AM
In the AFCCG, the Santo call was BLOWN. That was a catch by definition. I would like to ask the ref when a catch stops being a catch and when it starts becoming a "play". You can easily see a catch, control, 2-1/2 steps, & fall braced by left hand. The ground caused the fumble which we all know it can not do. It should have been a Steelers TD.

If they hadn't modified the rules, you'd be correct. When they made the rule change, it states that if the receiver is contacted by a defender, he must maintain possession even after hitting the ground. Holmes didn't, and although everyone in their right mid would say that he clearly had possession - the new rule doesn't allow for that determination. The whole time he was taking those steps (I counted 3) he was on his way down after being "contacted by the defender".

That's why the rule needs to be modified. They never anticipated someone taking multiple steps, and even changing his direction, while falling down from contact.

CPanther95
02-08-2009, 10:29 AM
You are either blind or need to watch the play again. Fitz did not have "full control" of that ball before the BALL hit the ground. I have watched that play SEVERAL times and it is easily seen that it should have been RED flagged by Tomlin.

There's not a single angle available (or combination of angles) that shows the irrefutable evidence necessary to overturn that call.

A challenge flag wouldn't have resulted in any change - except for losing a timeout and available challenge.

Dino 6 Rings
02-08-2009, 11:15 AM
I just find it funny that none of the football shows picked up on that catch and even in the Highlights they cut that play off early and never show it from the front view where you can clearly see the nose of the ball hit the turf.

Dino 6 Rings
02-08-2009, 11:23 AM
In fact...even on the NFL website videos, it shows the catch starting at 4:27. First is an over head shot, all the way through, then from behind all the way through, but the last angle, that shows the ball hit the ground, is cut off right before he gets to the ground.

I call Shady!

SteelCityMom
02-08-2009, 11:27 AM
Eh, you can't really complain too much about it since the guys upstairs and Tomlin didn't throw the flag and question it. Had they challenged the call on the field and lost then maybe I'd see more reason to question the call, but the refs aren't going to change the ruling on the field on their own.

Dino 6 Rings
02-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Eh, you can't really complain too much about it since the guys upstairs and Tomlin didn't throw the flag and question it. Had they challenged the call on the field and lost then maybe I'd see more reason to question the call, but the refs aren't going to change the ruling on the field on their own.

Oh I agree, we should have thrown the Red Flag. I think the turnaround was so fast from TD call to PAT That Tomlin never got a good word from upstairs on what to do.

Cards hussled to kick that ExPoint for sure.

Morgan
02-08-2009, 11:38 AM
I have to tell you, I'm not certain it would have been overturned, but I do know that ball hit the ground, and Fitz was in contact with a Steeler...it was that contact that made it so he couldn't ever achieve control of the ball. It was incomplete.

GodofGridiron
02-08-2009, 12:30 PM
It likely would not have been overturned. We were up 20-7 at that point and if they only get 3 in that instance many folks around the country grab remotes to look for alternative programming. It may have very well been incomplete, but no way in hell do the replay officials pull the plug on what would end up being the game for the ages.

CPanther95
02-08-2009, 12:35 PM
It likely would not have been overturned. We were up 20-7 at that point and if they only get 3 in that instance many folks around the country grab remotes to look for alternative programming. It may have very well been incomplete, but no way in hell do the replay officials pull the plug on what would end up being the game for the ages.

You sound like a Cardinals/Seahawks fan.

GodofGridiron
02-08-2009, 12:38 PM
You sound like a Cardinals/Seahawks fan.

Youre kiddin.........i dont have the funds to throw at that much Kleenex

fansince'76
02-08-2009, 12:46 PM
You sound like a Cardinals/Seahawks fan.

No he doesn't - he's not claiming the refs stole the game from the Cards. :coffee:

StainlessStill
02-08-2009, 12:49 PM
It was a touchdown.. even though the tip of the ball DID in fact hit the ground, the rule indicates that if he has full control of the ball, and he has two hands under it to solidify the catch then it doesn't matter and it is allowed. It was a catch and a Touchdown, as much as I hate to say it. Now...

On the first drive, I believe Ben WAS in. At first I thought I saw his knee touch from a view, but you clearly see a gap underneath his leg and a shadow. In regular speed you see his knee never hits and kind of hyper extends and he is then pushed in with momentum for 6. That's what I have a problem with.

CPanther95
02-08-2009, 01:09 PM
No he doesn't - he's not claiming the refs stole the game from the Cards. :coffee:


True, but that's not much different than saying the refs manipulate the game based on the ratings.

markymarc
02-09-2009, 08:32 AM
While I do agree that the play should have been challenged by Tomlin, IMO the play would not have been overturned. In the end I don't think it was a TD catch.

Morgan
02-09-2009, 08:36 AM
There are no conspiracies. There's too much incompetence to believe that any conspiracy would go undetected or unrevealed.

stlrtruck
02-09-2009, 08:37 AM
I watched this play over and over again this past weekend and have found that the ball did hit the ground and should have been ruled incomplete.

FacemeIke
02-09-2009, 03:51 PM
Cardinals fans (and all other Steelers haters) conveniently forget to mention this when they talk about the bad calls in the game.

Give It To Abercrombie
02-09-2009, 04:18 PM
Player is well defended in the endzone, goes up to catch the ball high. Defender's hand disrupts the ball a little bit. Player bobbles the ball around a little bit on the way down, feet hit the ground and he twists down, continuing to fall. Player doesn't get his hands under the ball and as he falls down face and chest down, the ball touches the ground under the player.

Is that a TD or an incomplete pass?

It was an obvious catch to me. Ya sound like a damn Seahawks fan. We won, who cares?

Steelman16
02-09-2009, 04:19 PM
I still think Ike covered Fitz very well on the play, considering his penchant for not being able to turn around quickly enough sometimes.

12+88=6
02-09-2009, 11:44 PM
it sure looks like it's gonna hit the ground.

xFreeWord420x
02-10-2009, 12:39 AM
It was an incomplete pass, but who cares. We won, and that is all that matters. The better team overcomes the bad calls.. and there was more of those towards our side than theirs. But as it always goes, the losers are the ones pointing those out. Thank goodness we are Steelers fans and dont lose SB's very often.

Stevo
02-10-2009, 04:11 AM
It was not a catch... and it has bothered me since the instant it happened in the 4th quarter of the game. But what a great way to put it into perspective. Losers cry about missed calls. The whole world knows that the Steelers won so I think I am going to move on from this now.

I am officially getting on the Stairway to Seven.

Go Steelers!

HometownGal
02-10-2009, 08:27 AM
Sure looks like the ball hit the ground but as others have pointed out - who really cares at this point? :noidea: The call on the field most likely would have stood up anyway, so it's pretty much a non-issue.

Hey Stevo - move on over. I'm hopping on the Stairway to Seven too! :tt02:

xFreeWord420x
02-10-2009, 11:33 AM
Sure looks like the ball hit the ground but as others have pointed out - who really cares at this point? :noidea: The call on the field most likely would have stood up anyway, so it's pretty much a non-issue.

Hey Stevo - move on over. I'm hopping on the Stairway to Seven too! :tt02:

Got room for me? I'd love to take that adventure!

lardlad
02-10-2009, 11:35 AM
Too much of this is open to interpretation. I think the key was determining if he had control of the ball on the way down. Ike did defend that well, about as good as you can ask.

Just imagine what the whining would have been like if they hadn't called that a TD?

fansince'76
02-10-2009, 11:39 AM
Just imagine what the whining would have been like if they hadn't called that a TD?

Exactly. The crybaby idiots are still squawking that Santo's game-winner wasn't a catch, when it's OBVIOUS to anyone who can see and doesn't have an ax to grind that it was. Better left alone.

steelballs
02-13-2009, 10:15 AM
Player is well defended in the endzone, goes up to catch the ball high. Defender's hand disrupts the ball a little bit. Player bobbles the ball around a little bit on the way down, feet hit the ground and he twists down, continuing to fall. Player doesn't get his hands under the ball and as he falls down face and chest down, the ball touches the ground under the player.

Is that a TD or an incomplete pass?

In think by definition it would be an incomplete pass. Santonio Holmes nullified catch in the AFCCG at the goal line is a perfect example of this rule. A receiver must control the ball THROUGHOUT the catch when hitting the ground during the reception. Incomplete

At least that's my interpretation.