Packers v Titans Game Thread: Thursday Night Football Edition

[thequick12]

Yes, his arm was in there and knocks it out. But if that happened at the 23 instead of the end zone and then the ball goes to the ground I have a feeling there’s very little probability they call that a catch fumble.

It’s a catch only because they have some different rules in the end zone.

Here's the thing...so we're concluding that because Ford touched the ball it was a td and the defender on the Doubs catch in the endzone did not thus it was incomplete ?

All I'm saying is call it the same both times...to me it doesn't matter if the defender touched the ball or not. Thats all part of completing a catch in football. The defender gets to try to knock it out before the pass catcher completes the catch. Kind of a big part of the game

 

[Mondio]

Put it this way, having seen the play and now know how they called it, I feel very confident I won’t know how they’ll call it the next time it shows up.

 

[OldSchool101]

that is how I saw it.

It looked like a catch (on slo motion) Thats a key additive. Slow motion. When they go slow motion it always seems to look more cut n dry. At real time speed those are bang bang plays and it’s my belief that the time (or lack of) factors into the referees decision process.
I’m going to assume (because I can’t remember) that the play was called “not a catch” because he didn’t maintain control through the ground because it was interfered by our player. If I recall their Coach was going to challenge until the booth revised the call?

My only question? Someone else brought this up. Had the ball come out without a Defender around is that a catch? I don’t believe so by rule. Regardless if it pops by itself or by a defender…. it needs to be definitive. I think had the ball come out identical to Ford’s timing? That the play stands incomplete. I’m not saying it’s a good rule, but it is the rule

Anyway the referee normally holds the tie breaker and unless it’s clear it should stand. They thought it was a conclusive catch, I’m ok with it was close leaning a catch.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It looked like a catch (on slo motion) Thats a key additive. Slow motion. When they go slow motion it always seems to look more cut n dry. At real time speed those are bang bang plays and it’s my belief that the time (or lack of) factors into the referees decision process.
I’m going to assume (because I can’t remember) that the play was called “not a catch” because he didn’t maintain control through the ground because it was interfered by our player. If I recall their Coach was going to challenge until the booth revised the call?

My only question? Someone else brought this up. Had the ball come out without a Defender around is that a catch? I don’t believe so by rule. Regardless if it pops by itself or by a defender…. it needs to be definitive. I think had the ball come out identical to Ford’s timing? That the play stands incomplete. I’m not saying it’s a good rule, but it is the rule

Anyway the referee normally holds the tie breaker and unless it’s clear it should stand. They thought it was a conclusive catch, I’m ok with it was close leaning a catch.

Hooper had full control of the ball when he came down, Ford ripped it out of his hands after the fact, Touchdown.

Unlike the fail Mary against Seattle and the replacement refs, when the Seahawks WR Golden Tate ripped the ball out of Packers Safety M.D. Jennings hands, after he had intercepted it in the EZ. The refs gave Tate the TD, now THAT one they got wrong.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[OldSchool101]

Hooper had full control of the ball when he came down, Ford ripped it out of his hands after the fact, Touchdown.

Unlike the fail Mary against Seattle and the replacement refs, when the Seahawks WR Golden Tate ripped the ball out of Packers Safety M.D. Jennings hands, after he had intercepted it in the EZ. The refs gave Tate the TD, now THAT one they got wrong.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Interesting. Here’s another one where Hunter Henry catches a ball against the Vikings tonight, reached for the chalk (football move) and breaks the plane. Play over TD
Then as he comes to the ground, which his large hand under the ball it gets jarred for a split second while on his chest. They ruled it an incomplete pass. There’s another weird play where he’s secured the catch, turned and made a football move and broke the plane.. Play over it’s a TD imo. How can you have an incomplete pass after making a two handed grab and reaching for the plane and breaking it is mind boggling.
It’s essentially the same play as the Dez “no catch” except Henry both broke the plane and the ball ended up on his secure on his chest.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Interesting. Here’s another one where Hunter Henry catches a ball against the Vikings tonight, reached for the chalk (football move) and breaks the plane. Play over TD
Then as he comes to the ground, which his large hand under the ball it gets jarred for a split second while on his chest. They ruled it an incomplete pass. There’s another weird play where he’s secured the catch, turned and made a football move and broke the plane.. Play over it’s a TD imo. How can you have an incomplete pass after making a two handed grab and reaching for the plane and breaking it is mind boggling.
It’s essentially the same play as the Dez “no catch” except Henry both broke the plane and the ball ended up on his secure on his chest.

A receiver has to maintain the catch when hitting the ground. Unlike a runner after a handoff, a player catching a ball has to "survive" contact from another player and/or the ground, while making the catch, before he is considered to have possession of the ball. Until he does, it's just considered an incomplete pass.

 

[thequick12]

A receiver has to maintain the catch when hitting the ground. Unlike a runner after a handoff, a player catching a ball has to "survive" contact from another player and/or the ground, while making the catch, before he is considered to have possession of the ball. Until he does, it's just considered an incomplete pass.

Ok so it was an incomplete pass but since Ford caught it before it hit the ground, its a TD?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ok so it was an incomplete pass but since Ford caught it before it hit the ground, its a TD?

Ford didn't catch it, Hooper did, watch the play again. Once he had full control of the ball and maintained it through a football move and the ground, Touchdown. Ford just ripped it out after the fact. Just like if a runner reaches the ball out and touches the pylon or extends it over the goal line, instant TD, wouldn't matter if they lost the ball a split second later.

 

[OldSchool101]

A receiver has to maintain the catch when hitting the ground. Unlike a runner after a handoff, a player catching a ball has to "survive" contact from another player and/or the ground, while making the catch, before he is considered to have possession of the ball. Until he does, it's just considered an incomplete pass.

I know that part. Yet we see plays all the time that the receivers hand is underneath the ball. They don’t reverse everyone of those. The ball never got away and it was on his chest when loose.

At worse. That should’ve been a catch after he pulled the ball back in and it need up in his chest. Spot at the 1 foot line imo. Terrible rule if that’s not a catch

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

At worse. That should’ve been a catch after he pulled the ball back in and it need up in his chest. Spot at the 1 foot line imo. Terrible rule if that’s not a catch

I'm confused as to which play your are referring to? I was referring to the Hooper catch (below). He was clearly in the EZ when he caught the ball and maintained possession, through contact with the ground. The ground never aids his catch, nor does hitting it, knock it loose. Ford ripped the ball out, after the catch and TD.

There are only 2 ways this play can be called. TD or Interception, since the ball never touches the ground. TD is the correct call for the reasons stated in the video and above.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm confused as to which play your are referring to? I was referring to the Hooper catch (below). He was clearly in the EZ when he caught the ball and maintained possession, through contact with the ground. The ground never aids his catch, nor does hitting it, knock it loose. Ford ripped the ball out, after the catch and TD.

There are only 2 ways this play can be called. TD or Interception, since the ball never touches the ground. TD is the correct call for the reasons stated in the video and above.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Oh yeah that was a catch the one Ford ripped out imo. It was close, but in favor of Hooper’s TD. Ford got there late I was just debating because I’m bored.

This one was last night and it was ruled a TD but reversed.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Oh yeah that was a catch the one Ford ripped out imo. It was close, but in favor of Hooper’s TD. Ford got there late I was just debating because I’m bored.

This one was last night and it was ruled a TD but reversed.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

I didn't watch the game last night, but just watched that review several times. Clearly not a catch. The ball touched the ground during the "process" of catching it and the ground moved the ball, no catch. Had the ball been secured in his hands and NOT moved when it touched the ground, TD would have probably stood. Basically, the ground can't "aid" the player in making the catch. How it aids him, is speculative, but if the ground makes the ball move, it is considered aiding him.

 

[thequick12]

I didn't watch the game last night, but just watched that review several times. Clearly not a catch. The ball touched the ground during the "process" of catching it and the ground moved the ball, no catch. Had the ball been secured in his hands and NOT moved when it touched the ground, TD would have probably stood. Basically, the ground can't "aid" the player in making the catch. How it aids him, is speculative, but if the ground makes the ball move, it is considered aiding him.

According to the rule the ball can move as long as the player still has "control"

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

According to the rule the ball can move as long as the player still has "control"

yes and no.

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

Now the important part(s):

1. Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control.
2. If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds

 

[OldSchool101]

Basically, the ground can't "aid" the player in making the catch. How it aids him, is speculative, but if the ground makes the ball move, it is considered aiding him.

Really? So you truthfully believe the ground caused him to catch that? It didn’t move that ball 1 Cm

Guys catch passes all the time where the football grazes the grass. They don’t reverse every play that the football touches the turf while in both hands, nor is that in the rulebook.
The only reason the ball came loose AFTER separating from the ground was 100% due to the TE switching hands. His hand clearly moved and the ball moved in direct response to hand moving 1ft AFTER and independent from surviving the ground. The ball also never touched the ground after he switched hands (independent of the ground force) is there f

Had the ball popped whatsoever when it contacted the ground it would be incomplete as you said.
Had the ground not been there?
I’m 100% sure that’s a catch either way and I’d bet anyone the family farm. Then, out of compassion, I’d give you half of your farm back because I like you and it would be like taking candy from a baby.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Really? So you truthfully believe the ground caused him to catch that? It didn’t move that ball 1 Cm

If you are talking about the Henry play, the ball was effected by the ground, before he had full control, so yes, it was incomplete. Watch it again, frame by frame the ball touches the ground before he has have full control of it, it comes up off the ground with his right hand on it and bobbles a bit, before he secures it with his left hand/arm. Saying "he lost control, because he was switching hands", doesn't change that, since it touched the ground. Saying that the "ground caused him to catch it" isn't correct, nor would it be correct to say that "the ground aided in the catch", because it can do the opposite. Basically, if the ball contacts the ground and the causes the ball to move differently, before the receiver has maintained clear and full possession, the pass should be ruled incomplete.

 

[thequick12]

Can you have control of the ball when its still moving? I think the rule implies you can but those definitions are apparently largely subjective