Was it overturned because of that whole "second act" thing? I had never heard of that before. It's amazing how many rules nuances there are and it seems like you can learn something new every game. I guess he didnt have to possess it through the tackle to the ground because he first bobbled and the catch was a second act. Or something along those lines. It was still pretty damn close.
In this case, was the control the first or second time? Because it looked he had it stretched over and then as he hit the ground started to bobbled then he regained control and a moment later had it knocked out by the defender's knee. Was it the first or second possession that was called? I thought it was the second but I could be wrong. And I understood that it was because this was a "second act" that he didn't have to possess it for as long.
It wouldn't matter if the ball came out or was bobbled when he hit the ground as long as he brought it over the goal line with control.
If he was standing in the endzone and the ball crossed the goal line as a pass then he would have had to do all of the things that make a pass and catch a legal one, having complete control of the ball as you hit the ground etc.
If the ball crossed the goal line as a pass this play would have been ruled incomplete.
If he was standing in the endzone and the ball crossed the goal line as a pass then he would have had to do all of the things that make a pass and catch a legal one, having complete control of the ball as you hit the ground etc.
If the ball crossed the goal line as a pass this play would have been ruled incomplete.
it was the 2nd act. he possessed the ball with it over the plain while lying on his back. the ball didn't come out until the defender's leg knocked it out.
i don't like the nfl's possessing the ball all the way to the ground rule. even on the intitial catch, it would have been incomplete even if he was over the plain as the "to the ground rule" would still apply.
i don't like the nfl's possessing the ball all the way to the ground rule. even on the intitial catch, it would have been incomplete even if he was over the plain as the "to the ground rule" would still apply.
I disagree.
It would have been incomplete if the ball literally crossed the goal line as a result of being thrown and not by being brought over the goal line in possession of the receiver.
When the ball is carried over the goal line it just has to break the plane.When it does the play is over and count the points.
It would have been incomplete if the ball literally crossed the goal line as a result of being thrown and not by being brought over the goal line in possession of the receiver.
When the ball is carried over the goal line it just has to break the plane.When it does the play is over and count the points.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/msLkIEM5ebg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/msLkIEM5ebg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
That was exactly the case.
All he needed was to have control just long enough to break the goal line with the ball.
After that, it didn't matter what happened.
If it had been anywhere else on the field it would have been a no-catch.....
My interpretation of it is you can see at the 19 second mark he catches the ball and has possession of it outside of the endzone. He then brings the ball across the goal line. Once he does that the play is over and count the points. If he had taken possession of the ball in the endzone instead of outside of it would have been ruled incomplete.
i don't know. i think the nfl's possession rule sucks anyway. a couple games this year i see a guy go in the air, catch the ball, get both feet in bounds, and loses the ball when he lands on his side. if the ground can't cause a fumble, then why should it cause an incompletion if a receiver possessed the ball all the way to the ground?
Nantz kept saying the receiver needed to keep possession all the way through his falling to the ground because of contact from the defensive player, but that was not the case. Moore went down without being touched by the defense. Isn't the rule different since Moore went to the ground on his own?
My amateur interpretation was that he had control of the ball, his back was on the ground, and the defender's leg touched his hand, instantaneoulsy making him down with the ball in the end zone. If this would have happened at mid-field, he would have been ruled down by contact, thus it was a catch for a touchdown.
My amateur interpretation was that he had control of the ball, his back was on the ground, and the defender's leg touched his hand, instantaneoulsy making him down with the ball in the end zone. If this would have happened at mid-field, he would have been ruled down by contact, thus it was a catch for a touchdown.
I disagree and here is why. When a player catches a ball inbound and gets 2 feet down and goes out of bounds but drops the ball it's incomplete. The entire act of catching the ball must be complete. Likewise if a player catches a ball in bounds and leans over the goal line in the act of catching and if the ball drops out it's incomplete.
It's the second act of the receiver that makes it a completed catch. Think of a receiver catching the ball and turning up field only to have the ball hit 5 yards later and fumbled. Those are 2 separate acts and it should (and is) a fumble, not an incompletion.
It's the second action after the catch that makes a catch a reception. What happens after that is in no way related to the catch.
