Dumb Complete Catch Rule Needs To Be Looked Into

[uga_falcons_braves]

I don't see how Freeman's catch was anything but a reception? Even Ferrera said that common sense needs to be applied when determining what's a catch.

Freeman caught the ball, made a football move up field and then broke the plain of the goal line all in one play. The fact that the ball came out after he broke the plain with ball control should supersede that rule.

[MACK4ttACK]

That's what my dad said

I had to go back to your posts to see if you are my dad LOL

but you can't be, cause he had no idea who Mooney was in May

Edited October 12, 2015 by THANK U BASED WORRiLOW

[ryanadonis]

The refs did everything they could to make the Falcons lose at the end . Pi on Alford , incomplete catch by freeman . Falcons still came out ahead

[DaMeatTroughsEgo]

The refs did everything they could to make the Falcons lose at the end . Pi on Alford , incomplete catch by freeman . Falcons still came out ahead

Not calling the hold on the play after the PI. BUT they could have called a block in the back on the Alford runback

[DurtyBurdz155]

As soon as the ball crossed the plain, the play should have been over. They really need to look at the rule.

[Tony Diesel]

Yes, that was one of the most unbelievable overturned calls I have ever seen! Freeman had possession... then broke the plain. smh

And that interference call on Alford was bogus.

[RS91]

The refs did everything they could to make the Falcons lose at the end . Pi on Alford , incomplete catch by freeman . Falcons still came out ahead

That PI call was worse than overturning Freeman's TD. If they are going to start calling that then what's the point of even having DBs? Alford was playing the ball. Both of them were fighting for position. If he had no idea where the ball was then whatever, but he was trying to catch the **** thing.

[fuego]

Not calling the hold on the play after the PI. BUT they could have called a block in the back on the Alford runback

Nah. It was more to the side.

[Malachore]

It was a catch, you could just tell Vegas called that game in to the officials. I don't think I've ever seen so many no call or blown calls.

[Factz]

That PI call was worse than overturning Freeman's TD. If they are going to start calling that then what's the point of even having DBs? Alford was playing the ball. Both of them were fighting for position. If he had no idea where the ball was then whatever, but he was trying to catch the **** thing.

I was shocked at that PI call.

Both the receiver and the defender have the right to the ball. Alford went up and tried to make a play, he hardly touched the receiver.

I guess the refs just wanted him to let the receiver catch the ball.

[fuego]

I was shocked at that PI call.

Both the receiver and the defender have the right to the ball. Alford went up and tried to make a play, he hardly touched the receiver.

I guess the refs just wanted him to let the receiver catch the ball.

Well he did grab him by the shoulder and turn him a little. I guess that's what they called. But Alford didn't even need to do that there.

[PokerSteve]

All these new rules favoring the offense are subject to way too much interpretation. Officials have no choice but to make purely subjective, split-second decisions on plays where anything ~ and nothing at all ~ could've been called, and a valid argument could be made for either.

Throw in poor training of the officials, the speed of the game, the sheer number of players on the field the officials are trying to monitor, add in a dash of stupidity and a cup of home-team favoritism and you have a recipe for a ludicrous NFL officiating system.

[Monolith2001]

I'm on the fence as to whether that should have been called a catch. The rules have to be consistent and there is a question you have to ask yourself. If that ball had been caught at the 5-yard line instead of the end zone, would you call it a fumble or incomplete pass? I think I would be compelled to call it an incomplete pass for the reasons the call was reversed.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Monolith2001

[fuego]

I'm on the fence as to whether that should have been called a catch. The rules have to be consistent and there is a question you have to ask yourself. If that ball had been caught at the 5-yard line instead of the end zone, would you call it a fumble or incomplete pass? I think I would be compelled to call it an incomplete pass for the reasons the call was reversed.

I actually think they would have called it a fumble.

[uga_falcons_braves]

That PI call was worse than overturning Freeman's TD. If they are going to start calling that then what's the point of even having DBs? Alford was playing the ball. Both of them were fighting for position. If he had no idea where the ball was then whatever, but he was trying to catch the **** thing.

I think Alford's reputation precedes him and refs assume he's gonna hold or something and anticipate the penalty. Clearly wasn't pass interference. Just goes to show how tough it is to play corner in this league. Too many penalties with no accountability for refs.

The Freeman overturn is equally critical because that could happen again later in the season. If that rule isn't hammered out, it's gonna cost somebody a victory.

[Factz]

Well he did grab him by the shoulder and turn him a little. I guess that's what they called. But Alford didn't even need to do that there.

I think you can call something so ticky tacky like that on almost any play a corner makes on the ball.

[Sir Joe™]

It was a touchdown. He makes a "football move" and extends the ball over the goal line, breaking the plane. If he's a runner then it's a touchdown. It wouldn't even matter if he fumbled or had it batted away, it would have been a touchdown.

He catches it, both feet down, extends the ball over the goal line via a "football move"; touchdown. It's common sense. He takes a step before he extends and his elbow hits the ground well before the ball comes loose, anywhere else on the field and it's a catch and down by contact.

So long as you have control of the ball when you break the plane of the endzone then it should be a TD, just as it for runners. No need to over complicate things and in the process potentially cost teams wins and even coach's their jobs with such rulings. It's a game of fine margins already without trying to be fancy with ******** criteria.

The refs are thankful we converted that 4th down otherwise it would have really been the deciding play.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Sir Joe™

[uga_falcons_braves]

I'm on the fence as to whether that should have been called a catch. The rules have to be consistent and there is a question you have to ask yourself. If that ball had been caught at the 5-yard line instead of the end zone, would you call it a fumble or incomplete pass? I think I would be compelled to call it an incomplete pass for the reasons the call was reversed.

But isn't that the point? When the ball breaks the plain of the goal line it's a TD plain and simple, right? That's the big difference between that happening on the five yard line and it happening in the endzone. Once the ball breaks the plain, the play is dead, is it not?

[Malachore]

It was a touchdown. He makes a "football move" and extends the ball over the goal line, breaking the plane. If he's a runner then it's a touchdown. It wouldn't even matter if he fumbled or had it batted away, it would have been a touchdown.

He catches it, both feet down, extends the ball over the goal line via a "football move"; touchdown. It's common sense. He takes a step before he extends and his elbow hits the ground well before the ball comes loose, anywhere else on the field and it's a catch and down by contact.

So long as you have control of the ball when you break the plane of the endzone then it should be a TD, just as it for runners. No need to over complicate things and in the process potentially cost teams wins and even coach's their jobs with such rulings. It's a game of fine margins already without trying to be fancy with ******** criteria.

The refs are thankful we converted that 4th down otherwise it would have really been the deciding play.

No they arn't, the Falcons were not supposed to win this game.

[Dirtybird3]

Exactly the refs or rules have so much grey area and interpretations it's not funny. If a player has the ball and crosses the plain the second the tip crosses td play is over. Just because he caught it first shouldn't matter. Me made a football more so is he not technically a runner of the football??

[RYNE]

I don't see how Freeman's catch was anything but a reception? Even Ferrera said that common sense needs to be applied when determining what's a catch.

Freeman caught the ball, made a football move up field and then broke the plain of the goal line all in one play. The fact that the ball came out after he broke the plain with ball control should supersede that rule.

My point is a completed catch shouldn't have even been the issue. He caught it, took two steps and jumped to the end zone while stretching the ball over the goal line breaking the plain.

Freaking terrible

[Mekias]

Freeman made multiple football moves with clear control after the catch. He caught it cleanly. He turned and dove for the goal line. He extended the ball. He pulled back the ball into his chest while turning his body so he lands on his back.

Use common sense, refs. The fact that this was called a catch on the field and then overturned makes it even more ridiculous.

As for the Alford PI call, it was extremely ticky tack. Technically he did reach up and slightly pull the receiver's shoulder. By the letter of the rule, that's pass interference but it also happens on almost every contested pass in the NFL. Both the defenders and receivers are pushing and pulling on almost every play. 90% of the time, Alford wouldn't have been called for a PI on this play. Refs need to be more consistent in what they call so everyone knows what's allowed and what isn't.

[Mr. Hoopah!]

They'll change it if it ever screws over a Patriots receiver. Until then, they'll keep it.

[ryanadonis]

James jones of the Packers had the exact same thing happen to him but they called it a touchdown . Jones made a football move , got the ball across the line and then let the ball go after hitting the ground. They called it a touchdown because he crossed the line while freeman made a football move , crossed the line , went down and lost the football and that = incomplete . Complete #######

[JC Falcon]

I disagree with it, but the ruling was he had NOT yet made a football move. Therefore he was NOT yet a runner. Therefore crossing the goal line with the ball was irrelevant. The ground is the ground anywhere. A WR toe tapping inside the pylon establishes possession in the field of play (including the end zone) but must maintain possession of the ball through to the ground when he then falls down whether out of bounds or in bounds while making a catch. They ruled Deconta did not maintain possession through to the ground as a WR in the act of making the catch.

The officials mistake in my opinion occurred in the judgment decision that Freeman's 2 steps merely established him in the field of play as a WR, but did not yet make him a "runner." It looked clear that he caught the ball and deliberately turned further upfield and deliberately extended the ball to break the plane.

As a RB his instinct is to break the plane with the ball as a runner and it doesn't matter what happens afterwards. A WR must think "control the ball through the ground, no matter if the ground is the endzone, out of bounds or in the field of play."

The rule needs work, but if you take away the "possession all the way to the ground" then you get a lot of toe tap catches and the guy then drops or bobbles the ball out of bounds and you argue if he had clear control and possession in bounds with the toe tap, which is a more subjective standard. Control of the ball through to the ground is a clearer standard.