The Overturned Touchdown

[Crazed Bengal]

It was an incomplete pass because once the ball was on the ground, Greshams hand flex, losing grip on the ball. His palm never left the ball, but because his fingers didn't continue to grip the ball, he didn't have control.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Crazed Bengal' timestamp='1321832912' post='879208']
It was an incomplete pass because once the ball was on the ground, Greshams hand flex, losing grip on the ball. His palm never left the ball, but because his fingers didn't continue to grip the ball, he didn't have control.
[/quote]
good call, horrible rule.. i think we all agree

[jusraven]

[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1321831581' post='879141']
Ground cannot cause a fumble, but can cause an incomplete pass. You have to maintain possession when taking the ball to the ground, and technically he did not.
[/quote]

[font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][color="#000000"]If the ball in under control when the player goes out of bounds the play should be over. To judge a play by what happens out of bounds makes no sense. This year it is an incomplete pass. Next year it will be a touch down. I am glad the Ravens won but this is technically a Bad Rule.[/color][/size][/font]

[ravensdfan]

[quote name='jusraven' timestamp='1321833186' post='879219']

[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]If the ball in under control when the player goes out of bounds the play should be over. To judge a play by what happens out of bounds makes no sense. This year it is an incomplete pass. Next year it will be a touch down. I am glad the Ravens won but this is technically a Bad Rule.[/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]

It is a bad rule. There are quite a few bad rules. I, personally, do not like that the ball only has to cross the plane on running plays but the receiver must get both feet down and keep possession as he falls to the ground. How does that even make sense?

[sflegend89]

It's a bad rule, but it's called consistently. This isn't like when it happened to Calvin. The receiver KNOWS they have to secure the ball all the way to the ground. Blame Gresham for bobbling and losing it, not the refs for making a call they've made consistently for the past 2 years. Like I said it is a dumb rule, so is the tuck rule. Tuck rule calls look a lot like fumbles don't they? But the rule is incomplete pass and the players KNOW that. The Megatron rule ends up with a lot of passes that look a lot like TD's.. but the players KNOW the rule and it will get called consistently as will the tuck rule.

The NFL is full of bad rules, but if the rule is called consistently it's on the players not the refs. Good teams make their own breaks, we've been on the short side some calls this year, today Cincy was on the short side. Good teams can overcome bad breaks and Cincy didn't overcome a bad break. It is what it is.

[LouieDaLug]

[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1321831381' post='879133']
Weird rule, but technically the correct call.
[/quote]
they need to change the rule, if that was a running play thats absolutely a TD. Ridiculous rule.

[funky141]

Yes it was a bad call. I believe the NFL will clarify later this week. The TE clearly took 2 steps in bounds for a completed catch, not a leeping catch to the ground, ie Johnson made last year.

Just a terrible call, but thats the way it goes at times.

[1/28/01]

[quote name='funky141' timestamp='1321835050' post='879296']
Yes it was a bad call. I believe the NFL will clarify later this week. The TE clearly took 2 steps in bounds for a completed catch, not a leeping catch to the ground, ie Johnson made last year.

Just a terrible call, but thats the way it goes at times.
[/quote]
Thanks for your comment on a properly called play. Bogus rule? Yes! But called correctly! Go Colts

[PuRock]

Yea it doesn't matter if he had two feet in bounds. The rules still require that possession has to be maintain through the whole process (including when going out of bounds). Players lose control out of bounds all the time that rules the throw incomplete.

[K-Dog]

[quote name='ravensdfan' timestamp='1321832205' post='879166']

The rule states: A receiver must maintain possession of the ball once making contact with the ground. He did not do that. There was one overturned in the SD/Bears game as well. Same thing. It is how the rule reads. Hate the rule but don't whine when the officials call it as it's written.

That said. I think it is a stupid rule the way it is being applied in some cases.
[/quote]

Well I wouldnt say I was whining....

[berad]

Didn't look like he completed the catch, to me. That's not a TD.

[Adam Jones]

I think it was the right call and it is a good rule; why is it a bad rule, it makes you complete the process of the catch? Don't forget, all the replays were in slow motion...

[ravensdfan]

[quote name='K-Dog' timestamp='1321836357' post='879328']

Well I wouldnt say I was whining....
[/quote]

lol Sorry wasn't referring to you. I had just come from NFL.com boards and all the Steeler fans were whining how the refs gave us the game.

[H8R]

Bad rule they need to change it. its a shame for THEM it wasn't a TD.

[T3hRaven]

The interpretation of the rule is completely correct. As much as Skip Bayless will whine about it (as he is incredibly anti-Ravens and is a Steelers homer), and imply the Ravens did not win that game, the refs were completely right in their interpretation of the rule. I would go as far to say as the point where he gained possession might have been after his left foot was down, calling that aspect of the catch into question as well.

[baltravens]

[quote name='K-Dog' timestamp='1321831281' post='879130']
I am the only one willing to admit that it was indeed a touch down and it was a bad call ?
[/quote]
A rule is a rule. I am glad the correct call was made.

[AmericanSatire]

[size=4][font=comic sans ms,cursive]As I mentioned in the gameday thread, here is my interpretation of what happened based off the replays available:[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=comic sans ms,cursive]1.) A receiver is not considered a runner until he has taken two steps. Why is this important? As stated earlier in the thread, the ground cannot cause a runner to fumble, but a receiver cannot lose control of the pass because of the ground, nor can he use the ground to secure the catch.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=comic sans ms,cursive]2.) Again, based on the replays I've watched, Gresham did not have control of the ball until his left-foot was on the half-yard line. His first-step, with is right-foot, was in the endzone. However, by this time, Williams was already on his back and Gresham was going to the ground.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=comic sans ms,cursive]3.) His second step, with his left-foot, was out of bounds. So, he is still technically a receiver and not a runner. Once the ball jarred loose on the turf, that was an incomplete pass.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=comic sans ms,cursive]Or so is my understanding of the rule.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=comic sans ms,cursive]~AmericanSatire[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=comic sans ms,cursive]P.S.: As I've also stated, the horse-collar tackle on Dalton -- horse-collar tackles do not apply to QBs or RBs in the backfield. I looked it up. (I'm such a nerd.)[/font][/size]

[Yatagarasu]

Here's the evidence!

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtF_rIK8IHk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtF_rIK8IHk[/url]

[atljbo]

I cant lie.. That was a TD 100% .... He had control of the ball before he reached the endzone so to me its similar to a guy stretching out to the pyline to get the TD .. The dont have to control the ball when they pass the pyline

[RavenousBG]

[quote name='K-Dog' timestamp='1321831281' post='879130']
I am the only one willing to admit that it was indeed a touch down and it was a bad call ?
[/quote]

No I agree with you wholeheartedly. The rule is idiotic. If it had been us, we would have been ticked. But rules are rules. I still think we would have won the game. I think we'd have scored on our drive. Cam started that drive off aggressively with the pass to Rice but then kind of tailed off. I think in a different situation, we are trying to take more time off the clock with a longer drive and also at least kick a field goal.

[nk02442]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1321831428' post='879137']
the refs actually had a good game toda, nothing glaringly bad, for either team, i hate that stupid megatron rule, i think thats a td for bengals, but by the rule its not... if they do that at the halfway line they always say the ball is allowed to hit the groud etc... why is it different in the EZ? or what am i not understanding
[/quote]

This was a horrible officating day. Oher was flagged for Hold that he barley even touched the rusher and webb was hit with a PI on an uncatchable ball. Atleast they got the TD right. Still amazes me how there can be an offical 2 feet away and they still miss it. I saw Mcphee held atleast 2X today, blatentent as hell but no call.

[Blex64]

[quote name='atljbo' timestamp='1321840849' post='879515']
I cant lie.. That was a TD 100% .... He had control of the ball before he reached the endzone so to me its similar to a guy stretching out to the pyline to get the TD .. The dont have to control the ball when they pass the pyline
[/quote]

Choose your words more carefully.

I think while most people would agree the rule is stupid and that it SHOULD have been a TD, according to the rulebook it is not. Good officiating, poor rule in general.

[Moderator 2]

[quote name='Blex64' timestamp='1321841845' post='879549']

Choose your words more carefully.

I think while most people would agree the rule is stupid and that it SHOULD have been a TD, according to the rulebook it is not. Good officiating, poor rule in general.
[/quote]
Agreed it happened right in front of us and the Ravens have been burned by that rule in the past--Dungy explained it on [i]Football Night In America[/i]

[Blex64]

[quote name='Moderator 2' timestamp='1321842201' post='879554']
Agreed it happened right in front of us and the Ravens have been burned by that rule in the past--Dungy explained it on [i]Football Night In America[/i]
[/quote]

Dungy explained it poorly imo, sounded like a moron.

[Moderator 2]

But he explained it lol

[tctony]

It was not a touchdown, and it was the correct call.

Breaking the plane is not enough in this situation, because he did not have full possession of the ball until he was already in the end zone.

Therefore, he needed to maintain possession all the way through the catch, including the contact with the ground, which he didn't.

[PuRock]

[quote name='RavenousBG' timestamp='1321841131' post='879527']

No I agree with you wholeheartedly. The rule is idiotic.[b] If it had been us, we would have been ticked.[/b] But rules are rules. I still think we would have won the game. I think we'd have scored on our drive. Cam started that drive off aggressively with the pass to Rice but then kind of tailed off. I think in a different situation, we are trying to take more time off the clock with a longer drive and also at least kick a field goal.
[/quote]

I've always been fair when assessing calls. If it was us making that incomplete touchdown, I still would've said its a good call (and catch a lot of flack for saying it). You have to maintain possession throughout everything. He did not.

[JamesRules]

[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1321831381' post='879133']
Weird rule, but technically the correct call.
[/quote]
I agree completely. It looked like Jermaine slammed the ball on the ground and held onto it like how NBA players squeeze the ball before dunking. Plus he went for the touchdown. If he settled for the first down, it would have been a completion.

I wouldn't compare the call to the Calvin Johnson catch.

[ravensdfan]

[quote name='atljbo' timestamp='1321840849' post='879515']
I cant lie.. That was a TD 100% .... He had control of the ball before he reached the endzone so to me its similar to a guy stretching out to the pyline to get the TD .. The dont have to control the ball when they pass the pyline
[/quote]

But he only got one foot down into the end zone once he had possession. Remember that he is not a runner where the ball only has to cross the plane. In order for a receiver to have "received" a pass he must take 2 steps or make a football move. He did neither before crossing the end zone. A receiver must also get 2 feet down into the end zone. He only got one. Therefore, right there it is a non-catch.

[1/28/01]

[quote name='ravensdfan' timestamp='1321847868' post='879710']


But he only got one foot down into the end zone once he had possession. Remember that he is not a runner where the ball only has to cross the plane. In order for a receiver to have "received" a pass he must take 2 steps or make a football move. He did neither before crossing the end zone. A receiver must also get 2 feet down into the end zone. He only got one. Therefore, right there it is a non-catch.
[/quote]
He got both feet in....had nothing to do with getting feet in, though. Bobbled the ball, caught it, broke plane, got feet in, fell to the ground and in that act of falling to the ground he did not properly and fully maintain possession of the ball.