Re: How is 2 pt conversion pass any different than Driver's..

...catch in end zone over end line player failed to bring it complete to ground to end of play? Refs over rule incomplete on this play yet upheld Driver's non catch against Bears was correct. I don't get it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2010 08:31PM by supackman.

I think the big difference was that the Saint receiver had the ball in his hand while he was on the ground! BTW that moron who called it no good wasn't he the same guy who hosed the Packers in the Playoffs
Pack88

The play ultimately ended up being ruled that Moore DID bring the catch complete all the way to the ground, and that the Indy player kicked it out of his hand after that process had been completed. Doesn't matter if it was a split second after, and 2 minutes after, it was still after the possession had been established and completed.

Regarding Supack's original post, wasn't the play in the Bears game Jennings and not Driver?

The Super Bowl call was horribly wrong and, as usual, the NFL refused to admit the mistake. From profootballtalk.com:

"Here's the official explanation from outgoing NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira (via NFL spokesman Greg Aiello): "By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch and the ball is dead when it breaks the plane."

But that's not what the rule says. Here's the operative language: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Basically, Pereira is applying an interpretation based on the assumption that Moore, while falling, secured possession and pushed the ball deeper across the goal line, before losing possession.

Again, that's not what the rule says. It says that if the player is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control after he touches the ground. Not during, but after. In other words, he must keep the ball until he comes to rest."

Chyra, Florio may be lawyer but he puts a condition forth that doesn't exist in the rules. He posits that you must hold the ball until you come to rest- doesn't say that at all, it says you must control the ball after you reach the ground -the Saint receiver catches the ball controls it and ensures the ball is over the plane when the defender kicks it out of his hand! I believed it was a catch as soon as I saw the replay. I still can't believe that moron looking at it from 4 feet away called it no good
Pack88

Florio is not the one adding things into the rule, Pereira is.

Pereira's explanaion: "By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch and the ball is dead when it breaks the plane." What rule? As Florio points out, there is no such rule in the books. Pereira made that up.

I watched the replay again. The receiver bobbled the ball immediately upon impact with the ground. He appeared to be close to regaining possession but then the defender's knee knocked it out. The operative language in the rule is "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone." The fact that the defender knocked the ball out rather than the receiver losing the ball on his own is irrelevant. He did not maintain possession after he touched the ground.

The real question is what does "after he touches the ground mean". If you think of it as a nanosecond then maybe you could say he maintained control. But in real time, he hit the ground and immediately lost the ball (i.e. he did not maintain control after he touched the ground). I have seen plenty of guys hold the ball a lot longer than this guy did only to lose it on the ground with the ruling incomplete. The rule has been applied the other way all season long and here, in a challenge situation, where the standard is clear evidence, the NFL reversed. Absolutely indefensible.

Even worse that Pereira fabricates rules to justify the call.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2010 12:10AM by Chraya.

I'm not sure which replay you saw but it is clearly visible that the receiver regains possession of the and reaches the ball over the plane of the goaline and the defender kicks it out of his hand!! So how is that not a catch!
Pack88

In super slow motion, yes. In real time no. He had the ball for maybe 1/10 of a second before it was kicked out. To me that is not possession. Nor is it the explanation that Pereira offered.

Where did you get your intepretation? It says, "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground" he had control of the ball, while he was on the ground, thus based on my reading of the rule, it was the correct call. I don't see anything indicating he must come to a stop, etc.

He had control for maybe one tenth of second before the ball was kicked out. If you want to call that control fine. Watch the replay live not in slow motion.

Yes, it was quick, but I'm not seeing any rule regarding the timing of the event in the rules. From my reading, control is control, whether it is control for a fraction of a second or for a minute, it doesn't mention any difference. For me, he proved control in that he was moving the ball across the goal line. As soon as the ball was in his control while he was on the ground, the play was over, it was a TD.

You are correct that there is no definition of how much time constitutes control in the rule. But anywhere else on the field, a fraction of a second does not constitute control. When a receiver has the ball in his hands for a fraction of a second before losing it, the play is ruled incomplete 100% of the time. Also, this was a reversal so the standard for reversing is high.

My real problem is the way Pereira defended the decision. If he had made the argument you guys are making at least he would be sticking to the rule book. But inventing rules is outrageous. I don't think the NFL wants to go on record as saying a fraction of a second constitutes control because of potential future implications.

Quote
FloridaPacker
The play ultimately ended up being ruled that Moore DID bring the catch complete all the way to the ground, and that the Indy player kicked it out of his hand after that process had been completed. Doesn't matter if it was a split second after, and 2 minutes after, it was still after the possession had been established and completed.

That is the best justification that exists for the call. The problem is that is not what Pereira is saying. He made up a non-existent rule to try to justify the call. Pereira says the play was dead the moment the ball cross the plain of the goal line and everything thereafter is irrelevant.

The problem with the explanation you cite is that the receiver hit the ground, immediately bobbled the ball and did not regain possession before the defender kicked it out. In super slow motion it may look that way but the "split second" standard has not been what the NFL has used all season.

I don't know about that but it is clearly visible that he reaches the ball out so he obviously has clear and complete control of the ball! As to the standard the NFL used all year that is a joke I saw 30 different interpretations of catches this year!
Pack88

Not saying you or Florio are wrong but does anyone know where to find the complete NFl rulebook online? All I have seen, including the one on NFL.com are abridged versions which always makes me wonder if we are missing part of the story in these discussions. I still have no idea what that "illegal forward pass" was that Rodgers threw out of the endzone in Minne last year either, but the rule must exist somewhere.The announcers made a comment about the 2nd move as well which makes me wonder if it is really is part of the rule.

The referee didn't mention any 2nd move it in his explanation though.

I just looked on Google and a copy of the 2006 NFL Rule Book is available on line as a PDF File. I took my information regarding what a catch is from the supposed verbatim copy of the rule and subsection listed in Pro-Football Talk
Pack88

Thanks, I found it and looks like the more detailed book I was looking for. Still after about 10 minutes I was unable to find even any clear rule on what constitutes a catch, like the "football move" we hear about so often or even 2 steps. I guess maybe you really have to dive into it, not sure if I care enough. Probably a lot of gray area in plays like this, it's really just the opinion of the offiicial of what makes a it a catch. It wouldn't surprise me if you could take two officials reviewing that same play and come up with different results. Typical of a lot of reviewed plays IMO.