Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Steelers Football > Pittsburgh Steelers


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-19-2009, 09:36 AM   #1
Steeldude
Living Legend
 
Steeldude's Avatar
Default Holmes' Controversial Drop

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.
Steeldude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 09:49 AM   #2
Milkman
Starter
 
Milkman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Centerville, Ohio
Posts: 478
Member Number: 1055
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeldude View Post
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
__________________

Us against the world...STILL!
Bring it suckas!
Milkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 09:55 AM   #3
peterroach
Water Boy
 
peterroach's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Gender: Male
Member Number: 11870
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

+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.
peterroach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:10 AM   #4
Hapa
Banned
 

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 971
Gender: Male
Member Number: 8230
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

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.
Hapa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:16 AM   #5
drizze99
Team Captain
Supporter
 
drizze99's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DE (Born in Greensburg, PA)
Posts: 921
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1070
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

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...
__________________


"You win by attrition. You impose your will on your opponent." ~ Mike Tomlin
drizze99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:19 AM   #6
peterroach
Water Boy
 
peterroach's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Gender: Male
Member Number: 11870
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapa View Post
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.
peterroach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:37 AM   #7
section514
Assistant Coach
Supporter
 
section514's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: dA bURGH
Posts: 1,331
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1401
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

i am just happy that we won, because the city of Pittsburgh would have been zebra hunting if we lost
section514 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:38 AM   #8
BubbyBrister
Draft Prospect
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Member Number: 10741
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

100% agree with peter.
those are the only two possible explanations, imo
BubbyBrister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:38 AM   #9
slippy
Bench Warmer
 
slippy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY: via Indiana, PA
Posts: 298
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5848
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

at least harrison finally got a holding call for us.
slippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:39 AM   #10
CPanther95
Team Captain
Supporter
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC (originally Greenville, PA)
Posts: 703
Member Number: 11672
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Holmes' Controversial Drop

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. :)
__________________
Knute Rockne: The secret is to work less as individuals and more as a team. As a coach, I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven.
CPanther95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts