TD taken away
by usmcsdi69 on Jan 20, 2009 12:13 PM EST
Email
PrintI was hoping that either reporting network, ESPN or NFL Network would have taken a better look at the catch & touchdown that Santonio made that was challenged by Harbaugh and called incomplete.
Correct me if I am wrong but Holmes made the catch....., made a *football move* with the ball was going down and before his knee touched the ground the ball crossed the plane for a TD and THAN the ball came out after contact with the ground. I thought the ground cannot cause a fumble?
Someone............, anyone help me out here please!
65 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
same here
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Judegement call
It was a judgement call as to whether he made a football move, and I for one didn’t actually think the ball crossed the goal line before he dropped it.
The ground can’t cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass. Like I heard one announcer say one time, he basically has to get up off the ground still holding the ball, or else it’s not a catch.
Not only can't the ground cause a fumble,
But also once the ball crosses the plane it’s A TD and the play is over.
+1
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
that’s true, but only after Holmes established possession, which is where people differ. I think it’s just one of those loopholes that should have just been left alone and not been overturned either way due to the lack of clear evidence. If the refs really thought that it wasn’t a catch and called it as such, then I’d be fine with that. But overturning it brings out the controversy
Brandona
by PrimantisStillersNAt on Jan 20, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
I dont think the ball crossed the plane… from the goaline angle it seemed that he fell about a half yard short and then bounced over the goaline after the he lost possession on the ball.
by steelersfan86 on Jan 20, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
Completely agree. I was trying to say that the goal line issue is a moot point considering the question was about possession. But then I forgot to say it.
Brandona
by PrimantisStillersNAt on Jan 21, 2009 2:50 AM EST up reply actions
I agree, I don’t really understand that rule as it was applied to that call.
I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!
by Frank Mineo (DYMS) on Jan 20, 2009 12:32 PM EST reply actions
I thought...
…they eliminated the “football move” rule last season.
i think
that the rule was actually changed to must have possesion for a tangible amount of time which makes the interpretation all that much more important, however it looked to me that Tone had possession, as he took 2-3 steps toward the endzone
by indianasteelers on Jan 20, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
What did you think
I thought……., without a shadow of a doubt he maintained control. He had the ball in clean possession for a good 10-15 seconds…….., if anything it was a FUMBLE!!!!
Every day brings future to past, every breath leaves me one less to my last. DT
I believe the rule is if a WR goes to the ground as a part of making the catch (which Holmes probably did, even though he was making a football move by stretching out), he has to maintain possession through the ground (which Holmes did not). If that’s the rule, the rule’s stupid in this case, but it may have been the right call.
charity standing orders
I think the worse call was the PI call on McFadden. I thought that was completely legal.
Oh, and right after the Holmes play, Ben got hit in the back after he threw a pass by a guy leading with his helmet. That’s the definition of roughing the passer, but it wasn’t called. Remember, Troy got called for roughing last week when he barely grazed Rivers’ helmet.
charity standing orders
Oh man yes
That was absurd. Two full steps after Ben had released and then on top of the lateness, speared squarely with the helmet. A perfect example of the double standard applied to roughing the passer calls all season long.
Fine on that one?
I saw that Ryan will not be fined for his hit on McGahee, but I would think that Leonhard should get fine for spearing a QB in the back with his helmet, not mention being a late hit.
by WolfpackSteelersFan on Jan 21, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
Fine his punk ass
I hate it how BB has a rep of being a “tough” QB which is why I think the Zebras let him get hit like that. It’s totally stupid, especially stuff the DOES get called sometimes like that roughing call on Troy when he barely touched Philip Rivers, total BS!
I don't like to complain about calls
but this deserves attention. Re: BadMaafala – It seems to me the question is was he going to the ground as part of making a catch (e. g. diving for the catch) or had he caught it already.
common sense
the bottom line is that common sense dictates that it was a catch. whether or not it crossed the plane of the end zone and was a touchdown is a different matter. but whether or not it was a catch is a matter of simple common sense. holmes clearly caught the ball, took a couple of steps and leaped for the end zone, stretching to try and get the ball across the plane. it was a catch.
it reminds me so much of troy’s interception against the colts in the divisional round of the playoffs in 2006. clearly he caught it and then fumbled it, but the replay officials got carried away with trying to follow the letter of the law in terms of the way the rules are worded. both cases illustrate how following the letter of the law can sometimes cause you to disregard common sense. common sense in both cases would indicate that catches were made.
...die trying
http://www.agentorangerecords.blogspot.com
How soon we forget?
Two things about that play.
1st..Bill Corrolo was the referee. Bill does not like catches and uses the fullest extent of the rule book. If you remember Troy intercepted a manning throw in the divisional round of the playoffs against the Colts. He did a summersault got up and ran and poked the ball out with his knee. Carrolo ruled no catch! As soon as the play happened this was my first thought.
2nd..Football move was removed from the rule book. A receiver must show complete possesion of the ball throughout the act. Santonio caught the ball, got two feet down, lunged for the end zone, but did not secure the ball on impact. With in the context of the rule book this was the correct call.
At the end of the day it is still a judgement call of the ref and the ruling on the field was TD. i would have been interested to see how Mike Carrey would have explained it.
I believe the ruling on the field wasn’t a touchdown, it was ruled a catch but shy of the goaline. Mike Tomlin was actually going to challenge before the Ravens did. Both coaches threw the challenge flag.
I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!
by Frank Mineo (DYMS) on Jan 20, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
Thank god.
I actually thought Tomlin DID throw the flag at the time and that we had lost a time out.
Indy game
The Indy game referee was not Bill Carollo—it was Pete Morelli. I do agree that the calls were eerily similar, though.
by nycsteeler on Jan 20, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
beg to differ
As seen in the Arizona – Philly game earlier, Larry F. did a similar move to try and get a first down and the ball came out when he stretched it out and it hit the ground. It was ruled a catch and not even reviewed. This in the same manner was the case, he didn’t need to secure the ball on impact because he had already gain possession of the ball and was headed towards the endzone. I’ll watch the play again tomorrow but I recall tone had a firm grip on the ball, the only reason it came out like that is because he stretched to get the touchdown. Hence it was a catch and at least on the one but imo it was a TD.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 20, 2009 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
Odd thing here
I understand that when contact is made from a defender the receiver must maintain control all the way to the ground. However in this particular case, it was a choice by Holmes to dive forward with the ball. Thus it was no longer part of the catch.
I would be interested to know whether the referee believed the ball crossed the goal line. Because I don’t think it could really be argued that he had possession of the ball till it hit the ground. If the ball touched the plane, it’s a touchdown without worrying about bringing it down. But perhaps not. It’s a dumb rule if you ask me, which Mike Pereira never does these days. you’d think he’d get over it, but the man holds a grudge.
by Chicago Steeler on Jan 20, 2009 1:24 PM EST reply actions
it was not a judgement call...
The rule is just like badmaafala says, if a reciever goes to the ground to catch a pass, he has to maintain control throughout the play, meaning that if you dive to catch it, you’d better not bobble it at all, and that includes endzone catches. That being said, it is an idiotic rule, especially applied to this scenario, since Tone was not diving to complete the catch per se, but it was an attempt to reach the endzone. Stupid stupid rule.
I personally think this and the PI call (first one) were terrible, but I was flat out astonished at the roughing the kicker call. That was unbelievable. I’m just glad we didn’t get any points out of it so Ravens fans can’t bitch about it.
There's the judgement
That’s what I’m saying (kinda but poorly).
“since Tone was not diving to complete the catch per se, but it was an attempt to reach the endzone.”
Since the dive toward the endzone had nothing to do with the act of catching it shouldn’t fall under the same rule. He clearly established possession before that moment. In another way if a defender had punched the ball out at that moment or holmes dropped it before hitting the ground, would it have been a fumble? I’m guessing not as the call was made, but I believe there is an element of judgement.
by Chicago Steeler on Jan 20, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
i couldn't agree more
I can see how that would be a judgement call. I was so pissed after this review. It seemed like they were punishing Tone for going after the endzone, cuz if he had just fallen down, it would have been a catch. Completely idiotic.
+1
I agree completely. He didn’t go to the ground to make the catch, he did it to dive for the end zone. That’s the key point.
+10
this is what i’m saying lol he was trying to get a touchdown, had nothing to do with the catch, i’m pretty sure tomlin is mailing this one to the league as we speak good thing it didn’t cost us the game.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 20, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
I’m just glad we didn’t get any points out of it so Ravens fans can’t bitch about it.
Oh ye of little faith.
nah, its not about faith
I have a good friend who is a Raven’s fan and all they did was bitch about the ‘catch’ at the end of the second game. That roughing the kicker call was a joke and they have nothing to complain about, because it didn’t affect the outcome of the game.
out of curiosity
what guns are those? What does me not wanting a bad call to affect the game have to do with faith?
it was catch no doubt...
lets suppose that his knee hit the ground before he stretched out to get the ball across the plane. if that was the case he’d be down the moment his knee touched and before the ball comes out and the play is dead. once a player is down, the ball can hit the ground and pop out but it wouldn’t matter because the play is over the moment the player is ruled down. however, because he made the extra effort to keep from being downed and to extend the play and get the td, the ruling is changed to an incomplete pass after review. penalized for the extra effort in other words.
total bullshit.
the crazy thing is that
even if his knee hits first, if he is going to the ground, he has to maintain possession all the way through to the end of the play. I’m telling you guys, this is one of the worst rules in pro football today. It just seems like receivers have to jump through hoops now to make sure that a catch is legal.
ok...
so lets hypothesize that he caught the ball, got both feet down – took two running steps – then stretched out for the endzone with the same end result. is that a catch? what about two hundred running steps? when the f#$% does it officially become a catch?
exactly
tone took a couple steps and lunged for the endzone. IMO this was as ludicrous as Troy’s Int taken away in 05.
I watched the catch
on my DVR over and over again. He had and maintained control of that football. The knees never hit the deck! If it wasn’t a TD it was first and goal from the 1.
Thankfully it didn’t affect the complete A$$ whoopin’ we gave the crows…….. but with about 4 1/4 minutes left in the fourth it looked like it could have.
Every day brings future to past, every breath leaves me one less to my last. DT
since this is an officiating thread...
… can anyone offer insight into the play in the SD game where Ben was trying to line up quickly and get the snap off to catch the Chargers defense off balance and the official would not clear out of the line? And, more specifically, how does this differ from what Manning (P) does so routinely, much to the hails and praises of Phil Simms and his ilk.
The Steelers made substitutions on the play.
And because of that, SD had to be allowed enough time to do the same. Had the Steelers not made any changes in personnel, the ref would not have slowed down play and a penalty would have been called.
More stupidity
From the rules digest:
Offensive substitutes who remain in the game must move onto the field as far as the inside of the field numerals before moving to a wide position.
With the exception of the last two minutes of either half, the offensive team, while in the process of substitution or simulated substitution, is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line and snapping the ball with the obvious attempt to cause a defensive foul; i.e., too many men on the field.
Firstly, if all players had to enter the field beyond the “TV” numbers, the defense can’t claim trickery. This rule exists similarly in NCAA and NFHS too, but there is none of this waiting around crap. Either the offense subs legally or not. If the offense can substitute legally, why should the defense get ‘extra time’ to get subs onto the field? The offense must get into a legal formation by rule, while the defense does not – so why is the defense at a disadvantage?
Secondly, why change the rules in the last 2 minutes? They are admitting that the rules screw up the flow of the game and at the end – when things are most critical they are trying to rectify a bad situation. It also leads one to believe that they want the offense to score in hurry-up situations but not at other times. Drama – increase the drama but get the game done in 3 hours or less.
Only a commitee filled with lawyers and TV execs can come up with crap like this. College football doesn’t need artificial scenarios to create drama. The game itself is perfect, leave it alone. The continual modifications the last 20 years have not made it a better game, only better for TV planners and ad sales.
"Franz" in NoCal
The defense has to react to the offensive substitutions in terms of recognize which package is out there and choose their personnel. I think it’s legit to spot them a few seconds or so to change guys as long as they’re making an effort to do so. That doesn’t mean 5 seconds of waiting for the D to notice or anything if they’re all standing around, but it would be unreasonable to think that the defense could recognize, sub, and set in the same time as the offense.
Brandona
by PrimantisStillersNAt on Jan 21, 2009 2:56 AM EST up reply actions
Agree
I think the best part of the rule is “simulated substitution.” This is obviously aimed at preventing an offense from trotting guys partway onto the field, only to run off, enticing a few defensive players will be switching.
Since there is no actual substitution by the offense, they are ready to snap it at the drop of the dime. The defense would be offside every single time. The rule seems overcomplicated, but it’s necessary.
by CarlWeathersMustache on Jan 21, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
thanks for clarifying
I hadn’t realized there had been an offensive sub.
Should have been, at the very worst, a first and goal at the one.
The rule does state that the receiver has to complete the play if brought down by the defensive player while making the catch. However, he took TWO FULL STEPS before reaching for the end zone and fumbling the ball as it hit the ground. The fact that the db was hanging on him the whole time shouldn’t be enough to negate the catch. I believe that the rule needs to be looked at a little closer. Maybe adding the old “make a football move” to it somewhere would help.
and
Does that mean that if a player make a catch at the 20 yard line (with a db all over him), drags the defender 15 yards, then fumbles as he finally goes to the ground, that it is an incomplete pass? That’s basically what the referee was saying by overturning the catch.
exactly my point
at what point does the “catch” become official. seems like thats only determined after the play is completely over whether that means the receiver ran for half a yard or sixty and a half yards.
Again - bad rule begets bad ruling
The following is from the NFL rules digest. I’m not going to waste my time or money acquiring an official rule book since their interpretations are even more ridiculous than the actual rules.
A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball.
I would contend as others have, that Holmes caught the damn ball and then clearly lost possesion while reaching out for the goalline and hitting the ground. He was contacted by the defender and then took 2 steps from what I recall, then made the reach – so it’s either a momentary fumble and recovery or he is down by contact at the 1 foot line.
The ruling is so against what any athlete or competitor intuitively understands simply by watching what happened. I think the vast majority of unbiased athletes would confirm that the guy caught the ball – wouldn’t they? So, if he caught the ball – something else must have happened ie: he fumbled it or if the ground can’t cause a fumble then it is dead right there.
It brings up a bigger issue – Q: Why was he straining forward with the ball like that?
A: He is attempting to ‘break the plane’ of the goalline. Well, if they didn’t have that stupid rule, they would save themselves about half of the challenges and reversals from the league office. Why should an offensive player be rewarded with the game’s highest score if he flies past the goalline and ends up out of bounds, without ever entering the scoring zone? It’s not a logical idea nor is it in line with other areas of the playing field.
Hell, in rugby you would lose possession of the ball if you flew out of bounds with the ball – whether or not by force of an opponent. Everyone wants to make it into basketball. Guess what – NBA basketball sucks and ratings have declined over recent years.
"Franz" in NoCal
Officiating artificial competitiveness into (all NFL) games??
Does anyone besides me ever wonder if the NFL TELLS the refs to make calls that keep games artificially close?
How many times have we seen the Steelers dominate opponents on the field but have to score over and over because of holding calls on big plays, or how many of the TDs our defense gave up as a result of a ridiculous PI call? It happens in every game, not just Pittsburgh games. I’ve seen most NFL games have at least 2-3 momentum-changing calls that challenge one team’s dominance.
Could this be the real reason NFL games rarely turn into the blow-outs we see in college? Officials over-officiating games in order to keep them longish, interesting, and therefore “marketable? Not necessarily "fixing” games, but absolutely influencing them?
Catch and fumble
It certainly looked like a catch IMO. He caught the ball made a move up field, realized he was gonna get tackled and lunged for the goal line. Previous to being downed he fumbled and recovered the ball. Still equals a TD. It was a BS call. Though I will give the refs at least the credit that they called a hold againts the birds.
nah, I don’t see that. I might be a blind idealist, but I think the NFL recognizes that the more the officials influence the game, the lower their rating is going to get. This accompanied with the hefty rulebook that is quite a beast to understand is counterproductive, and I would say without a doubt that the officiating is far from perfect, but the lack of blowout games is much more attributed to the free agency/salary cap driven parity than any official influence. But again, I’m an idealist haha.
Brandona
by PrimantisStillersNAt on Jan 21, 2009 3:03 AM EST up reply actions
Absolutely
The NFL may not be “fixed”, and I don’t even think the refs favor some teams more than others (aside from offensively inclined teams). But they definitely officiate in favor of high scoring, close games.
The NFL is a business. If Wall Street types worth billions will cheat just to get a few more millions, you don’t think the NFL wants to protect its MULTI BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY. I don’t blame them: protect the goose that lays the golden egg. Remember what Tom Hagen said: Don’t make it personal. It’s strictly business.
by CarlWeathersMustache on Jan 21, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
Holmes' talent got penalized
I have to agree that it should have been a touchdown. The act of catching the ball was complete; he had the ball secured with his first step, and he somehow was able to plant his second foot (while maintaining possession) and avoiding going to the ground for the sole purpose of stretching the ball to the plane of the goal line. If he’d gone to the ground as part of the catch, his knee would have hit with the ball just short of the goal line. It was only his great athletic ability that allowed him to somehow plant the second foot, keep his knee off the ground and lunge toward the end zone. He didn’t lose control of the ball until it hit the ground after crossing the plane so it has to be touchdown, not a fumble. When a player makes a tough end zone catch along the boundaries, tapping two feet in while falling out of the field of play, he has to maintain possession upon hitting the ground because the entire physical act is part of catching the ball. Santonio’s stretch was a separate physical act from the catch.
A hand equals a foot?
Not only did he take two (or three) steps after possessing the ball, he then put a hand on the ground before finally crashing down on the ball. Since a hand doesn’t count as being down, it is the same as a foot, right? So that makes three steps (maybe four) before the ball comes out. I say it is a catch and no fumble, because the ground cannot cause a fumble. Then it is a question of where to spot the ball.
Yea that's exactly what I thought.
To the tune of the classic children's song "This Old Man" (the part with nick nack patty whack)
Big Snack, Silverback, take the Dawg Pound's Bone, the Black and Gold sent the Brownies crying home.
by Tim Mullhaupt (HSS) on Jan 20, 2009 9:26 PM EST reply actions
Has nothing to do with a "football" move
I believe the call SHOULD have been ruled a TD on this basis:
He caught it. He took a couple steps with the ball tucked away. Tone’ makes very quick catches. He immediately tucks it away and keeps it from bobbling.
Then he started moving.
He only lost the ball when his arm hit the ground. This was AFTER the movement forward. This cant be a fumble as his elbow landed before the ball came loose.
Should’ve been placed at the 1 inch line, and thats that.
Franz’s explanation is the best.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."
Art Rooney Jr.
"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Alex Smith caddied for Jim Harbaugh at AT&T Pro-Am
- Boston (in) Common: Kevin Youkilis set to marry Tom Brady’s sister
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
