Jump to content

The White catch out of bounds, are the officials seeing something im not


Ice74
 Share

Recommended Posts

Was the ruling on that wrong, even Billick said it was a good catch and bad replay,

was the ref right??

Also.......the one play where Douglas was held downfield, how that was not called PI, i dont know, the DB grabbed Douglas,

and the ref didnt call it,

we've been getting hosed by the refs this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I'm really not one to cry about referee calls pretty much ever because I live by the, "win some lose some" philosophy. I didn't get to see the White play because I was on the move but as far as the Douglass play all I can tell you is that there as absolutly contact and the only reason I can think that they didn't call it was because it was incidental but it looked like PI to me for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the ruling on that wrong, even Billick said it was a good catch and bad replay,

was the ref right??

Also.......the one play where Douglas was held downfield, how that was not called PI, i dont know, the DB grabbed Douglas,

and the ref didnt call it,

we've been getting hosed by the refs this year

I can't understand whats going on with the ref's this year. I mean is is just CRAZY the calls and the lack of calls that have been going on. BUT I guess that is helping us to be the team we are. A NO EXCUSE team that makes up for the refs withs PLAYS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also gave us a very questionable 15 yards on a horse collar that was not really what I would call a horse collar. The Pantie player barely even touched our guy (I forget who had the ball).

I thought that horse collar tackle was pretty legit - the defender used the neck part of the uniform as a handle to pull the runner down from behind. Just because it wasn't a particularly nasty fall doesn't make it any more legal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood it that he had possession of it, and when he hit the ground the ball came loose, if that happens in the field of play it would be ruled a fumble??

It's a catch and fumble when the player has control of the ball and make a "football move" before he loses the ball. When you catch the ball falling down you can't make a "football move" so you have to hold onto the ball after you hit the ground. Roddy didn't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a catch and fumble when the player has control of the ball and make a "football move" before he loses the ball. When you catch the ball falling down you can't make a "football move" so you have to hold onto the ball after you hit the ground. Roddy didn't do that.

He turned and took 2 steps before going out of bounds. He made a football move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a catch and fumble when the player has control of the ball and make a "football move" before he loses the ball. When you catch the ball falling down you can't make a "football move" so you have to hold onto the ball after you hit the ground. Roddy didn't do that.

Disagree. White established possession, took two or three steps then went out of bounds. Play is then over. He could have immediately thrown the ball into the stands and it would have been a catch. That was a horrible call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that horse collar tackle was pretty legit - the defender used the neck part of the uniform as a handle to pull the runner down from behind. Just because it wasn't a particularly nasty fall doesn't make it any more legal...

Also. The defender didnt complain about it at all. I think it was Chris Harris. He knew he did it. The only thing that made it look not so blatant was that Jenkins had another guy forcing his momentum forward, thus putting less strain on Jenkins' lower body and knees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He turned and took 2 steps before going out of bounds. He made a football move.

That's what I was thinking/saw. I believe Billick had the call right, the ball should've been a catch. He had possession in bounds and then fell out of bounds to lose it upon hitting the ground, IMO. Either way...the refs have been horrendous all around this year. Someone a few posts above said it best probably...you win some you lose some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the nfl seems to have addopted this rule that you must maintain possession of the ball all the way to and through the ground, even if you are already out of bounds. i don't necessarily agree with it, but that's what they are doing these days. by that rule, it was the correct call.

the call on HD wasn't PI, it was illegal contact. the ball wasn't in the air when the penalty occured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't turn and take two steps. He took two steps falling out of bounds. The ref said something to that effect. You just need to keep possession of the ball when you hit the ground.

I'm not saying it's a good rule (remember the Jenkins no catch in Chicago 2-3 years ago?), but it is the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the nfl seems to have addopted this rule that you must maintain possession of the ball all the way to and through the ground, even if you are already out of bounds. i don't necessarily agree with it, but that's what they are doing these days. by that rule, it was the correct call.

the call on HD wasn't PI, it was illegal contact. the ball wasn't in the air when the penalty occured.

That's not quite correct. This is only true if you catch the ball on the way out of bounds. In this case, he caught the ball inbounds, turned, took a couple of steps and went out of bounds, where he lost possession when it hit the ground - that was a catch, no matter how you want to twist it - it was a catch. One of the rare times they showed the replay on the Jumbotron multiple times. I haven't seen the video yet, but it was a catch.

As for the illegal contact, they didn't call anything, so moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not quite correct. This is only true if you catch the ball on the way out of bounds. In this case, he caught the ball inbounds, turned, took a couple of steps and went out of bounds, where he lost possession when it hit the ground - that was a catch, no matter how you want to twist it - it was a catch. One of the rare times they showed the replay on the Jumbotron multiple times. I haven't seen the video yet, but it was a catch.

As for the illegal contact, they didn't call anything, so moot point.

I'm watching it right now. He never turned. He was falling to the ground with those steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...