Jump to content

Can someone explain to me why the refs didnt review the


Ice1974
 Share

Recommended Posts

Roddy drop at the end of the 1st half?? right before Ryan fumbled,

looks like he had possession then went to the ground and lost the ball when he hit the ground(which would be a catch if he maintained possession of the ball going to the ground)

but why no review??? its in the final 2 minutes of the half

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roddy drop at the end of the 1st half?? right before Ryan fumbled,

looks like he had possession then went to the ground and lost the ball when he hit the ground(which would be a catch if he maintained possession of the ball going to the ground)

but why no review??? its in the final 2 minutes of the half

Can't remember the play, but a receiver has to maintain possession after hitting the ground. unless he establishes possession by making a football move after the catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't remember the play, but a receiver has to maintain possession after hitting the ground. unless he establishes possession by making a football move after the catch.

right before the half, around the 50, Roddy fumbled, but Gonzo recovered it, was somewhere around the 1:40 mark i think, the very next play Ryan fumbled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is so screwed up because a player making a "football move" is so subjective. There has been many high profile similiar plays this year, and I predict it is going to lead to a rule change. The rule should be if a player establishes possession with two feet on the ground then drops the ball when he hits the ground, it is a catch. Hopefully they will get that corrected, will clear up a lot of confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is so screwed up because a player making a "football move" is so subjective. There has been many high profile similiar plays this year, and I predict it is going to lead to a rule change. The rule should be if a player establishes possession with two feet on the ground then drops the ball when he hits the ground, it is a catch. Hopefully they will get that corrected, will clear up a lot of confusion.

you know thats the way it used to be, player has possession , goes to the ground, ground cant cause a fumble, then they started messing with the rules, and thats when things got confusing

you know what is a football move

I saw countless times where Dunn would just dive/fall to the ground(to avoid a big hit) is that a football move, because roddy fell to the ground

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cause he didn't catch it

He caught it and then fumbled.

The sports bar i was at erupted with Giants fans calling "Fumble!! Fumble!!" and arguing that he indeed did catch it and fumbled.....before they suddenly realized after the replay that Gonzo had recovered.

I still dont understand why it wasnt reviewed upstairs, or why we didnt challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is so screwed up because a player making a "football move" is so subjective. There has been many high profile similiar plays this year, and I predict it is going to lead to a rule change. The rule should be if a player establishes possession with two feet on the ground then drops the ball when he hits the ground, it is a catch. Hopefully they will get that corrected, will clear up a lot of confusion.

I hate the "football move" rule. It does create alot of confusion. I don't understand what is wrong with just possesion and 2 feet down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He caught it and then fumbled.

The sports bar i was at erupted with Giants fans calling "Fumble!! Fumble!!" and arguing that he indeed did catch it and fumbled.....before they suddenly realized after the replay that Gonzo had recovered.

I still dont understand why it wasnt reviewed upstairs, or why we didnt challenge.

yes you could argue that it was either a fumble or a catch(and he was down when he hit the ground)

but for them to call it an incomplete, and not even look at it,

even the announcers said it was a reviewable worthy play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he's a Falcon.

Examples:

Last year (Carolina at the dome) Roddy caught the ball - turned - took 3 steps to the sideline - fell out at the sideline - they called it complete - then reviewed it and called it incomplete because he lost it when he hit the ground.

Last year (San Diego) Finneran stood there - the ball came down - he never possessed it and dropped the ball - never moved from his spot - San Diego recovered - and got a touchdown.

This year (Carolina at the dome) Rosario caught the ball and was falling as he turned - lost the ball as he hit - was called a touchdown - and upheld

This year (Washington at the dome) Rocky McIntosh intercepted Ryan's throw - took no steps - but fell immediately to the ground - dropped the ball - it hit the ground - then picked it back up - then advanced another 18 yards. Not only was it not called incomplete - they gave him the extra 18 yards.

Here is the actual rule:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3

Player Going to the Ground. 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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's garbage, had the Giants recovered you had better believe they'd have been calling it a fumble.

Should have been 1st down Falcons. As the poster above said we get crappy calls against us all the time and I'm so @#!@!#@ tired of it! :angry:

I guarantee you that if the giants had recovered, it would have been a catch and fumble. I for the life of me didn't understand why Coach Smith didn't challenge it. Maybe they saw something that i didn't

Edited by FalconinPA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guarantee you that if the giants had recovered, it would have been a catch and fumble. I for the life of me didn't understand why Coach Smith didn't challenge it. Maybe they saw something that i didn't

Well, Smitty couldn't challenge because it was within 2-minute warning, right?? But even so, DEFINITE booth review needed on that one. I was seething after that play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roddy drop at the end of the 1st half?? right before Ryan fumbled,

looks like he had possession then went to the ground and lost the ball when he hit the ground(which would be a catch if he maintained possession of the ball going to the ground)

but why no review??? its in the final 2 minutes of the half

I was saying the same thing watching the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, hypothetically speaking... If a player catches the ball, and stands there frozen for 15 seconds, then an opposing player hits him and the ball falls out of his hands and on to the ground, it would be an incomplete pass because he stood still and never made a "football move", right?

Frankly it's all too subjective. Any rule that is left up to interpretation will end up being bent over and raped by an illogical attention whore ref, at some point. It's inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, hypothetically speaking... If a player catches the ball, and stands there frozen for 15 seconds, then an opposing player hits him and the ball falls out of his hands and on to the ground, it would be an incomplete pass because he stood still and never made a "football move", right?

Frankly it's all too subjective. Any rule that is left up to interpretation will end up being bent over and raped by an illogical attention whore ref, at some point. It's inevitable.

It wasn't when Finn caught that pass in San Diego. He never moved from his spot - the defender was all over him as he was making the catch and the ball went to the ground. The defender picked it up and ran it in for a touchdown. Of course, that was the play where Ryan nailed the ref - so at least that part was cool.

Everything is just too subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, hypothetically speaking... If a player catches the ball, and stands there frozen for 15 seconds, then an opposing player hits him and the ball falls out of his hands and on to the ground, it would be an incomplete pass because he stood still and never made a "football move", right?

Frankly it's all too subjective. Any rule that is left up to interpretation will end up being bent over and raped by an illogical attention whore ref, at some point. It's inevitable.

haa, good one,

makes so much more sense, 2 feet down, in hands, complete, ground cant cause fumble, done

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...