After further review, Jennings catch not a TD and here's why
by BleedsbluinMI on Dec 16, 2009 2:31 PM CST
29 comments
There has been much discussion about Jennings catch as to whether or not it was a completion, and therefore a TD. When I saw it, I thought it was b/c he had control and two feet in, doesn't matter after that. After looking into it, I now know I didn't know and understand the actual rules. The rule has changed and is a little confusing.
First off, let's clear up what the rule is that applies here. The "football move" verbiage was removed a couple years (2007) ago and replaced with the "maintain possession throughout contact with the ground" or going to the ground clause.
The interpretation is this: possession is established in the field, sideline, or endzone with control of the ball and two feet (or other body part except hands) down. If the player is contacted by a defender before both feet come down, then the going to the ground note is invoked. That says he must maintain control of the ball before, during, and after contacting the ground.
I still cannot find video of the catch, but a few photos (see below fold) I have seen show Tillman in contact, and I think it is safe to say he was before both Jennings' feet came down. If that is the case, then Jennings would have had to remain control all the way to the ground and after contacting it. (he did not) Note: it does not matter that he was not going to the ground during the catch, only that he was contacted before both feet were down. That contact is what made control of the ball necessary all the way down.
Mark Pereira, the NFL VP of Officiating explains it very well here about a TB receiver in week 10: Video here
Also, watch the next item he discusses involving the GB/Dallas game. MM got away with one there.
There you go - No Catch. Who cares, we won and the Bears still suck!
This is how the rule actually reads:
"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."
Note 1, going to the ground clause:
"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball [with or without contact by a defender] 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."
Also, the force-out rule was removed in 2008, to clear up one remaining question that was raised.
0 recs |
29 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Here's my beef
I don’t recall Jennings going to the ground at all (of course, there are no videos out there to refresh my memory).
He did not
go to the ground, both feet were in and he had possession. The only point possession became a question was when he was already out of bounds and by that point it is to late —TD. It actually should have been a force out TD. Watch it, watch it again, I did. Possession was in question only when he was out of the endzone. Notice you have not seen a NFL Total access Mike Pereira official review segment on it. But yet they had a segment for the Eagles-Giants game………… Because they screwed that one up.
Oh sorry
I think I misinterpreted Danwood talking about whether or not he went to the ground..
by packallday555 on Dec 16, 2009 10:11 PM CST up reply actions
There is no force out rule anymore.
The force out rule was eliminated with the rule changes before this season.
I mean
I could be wrong packallday555, I often am. But I swear I watched that baby about 20 times on replay and the only time possession was in question was when he was already out of bounds. I would think NFL network segments on refs getting the calls right would have one on that play but I don’t think we will see it. I will see if I can put it up on youtube and bring a link
Here's the problem with that analysis:
“A person who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure a loose ball…”
That’s not remotely what happened. The ball was secure for 2 steps. It never moved. It was only after possession was established by Jennings “firm grip and control of the ball inbounds” that the opposing player tomahawked his arm, causing a juggle that occurred AFTER Jennings had already established possession in the endzone. Jennings went to the ground out of bounds.
The competition committee has completely screwed up this rule, first with their “football move” bullshit and now with this mess. Time was that any 6 year old knew what a completed pass was. Now it’s been made so subjective and dependent on the ref’s interpretation of the player’s intent (did he go to the ground to secure a loose ball? Or did he just fall over?) that NO ONE, including the refs, know what a completed pass looks like.
Bottom line, that was a catch in peewee, middle school, high school, sandlot and college football. The ONLY place where there would have been any question about whether the pass was completed is the NFL. That’s a joke.
Ask yourself this: If Jennings had caught the ball outside the endzone, taken two steps and had the ball knocked out (ala Don Beebe) by a pursuing defender, causing the ball to roll through the endzone, is there any doubt it would have been ruled a completed pass and a touchback? If so, what the hell is the difference here? The fact that he fell over? If control and 2 steps is a catch at the 5, why isn’t it a catch in the endzone, where by definition, the play is OVER once the player crosses the goal line in possession of the ball? Even as the rules are written, it’s still a TD. The refs are just too damn confused to know it.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 16, 2009 11:13 PM CST reply actions
Here's an even better example:
An RB dives over the line to get into the endzone. We’ve all seen this happen. As he comes down, the ball comes into contact with the ground and comes out after he crosses the line. Is that a fumble? Of course not. Once he crosses the goal line, the play is over. But, according to the NFL, a WR who catches the ball over the same goal line and takes two steps and then juggles the ball as he’s tackled has failed to catch a pass?
Does that make any sense to anyone? It sure doesn’t to me.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 16, 2009 11:17 PM CST up reply actions
The dive example is pretty good.
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Dec 17, 2009 2:15 AM CST up reply actions
that is very different actually. The running back diving has already establish possession of the ball so the second he crosses the line, its a TD. The WR hasn’t established possession yet. If Jenning caught the ball on the two, had possession and dove to get in, its a TD, but this is different. Not saying I don’t think its a catch, I still haven’t seen it and I don’t care because it doesn’t matter…but this example actually doesn’t work.
I think the NFL is getting too ticky tacky with their definitions of things including this.
"The WR hasn't established possession yet."
Why not? A WR going out of bounds establishes possession by getting two feet down while in control of the ball. For decades, the rule was the same in the endzone: once the WR catches the ball and is in control of the ball and gets 2 feet in, play over. Even the rule quoted above doesn’t contradict that position, instead it addresses situations where the WR goes to the ground in an attempt to control the ball, which isn’t what happened in this case, so I’ll ask you again, why hasn’t the WR established possession of the ball when he has it in his hands, the ball isn’t moving, and he gets 2 feet down in the endzone. There’s no fundamental difference between that play and the RB sticking the ball out over the goal line and getting it knocked loose. Saying it’s different because the WR hasn’t established possession is a circular argument unles you explain why it is (and where in the rules) it says that a WR in controll of the ball and 2 feet down in the endzone hasn’t established possession of the ball.
So let’s hear it: why hasn’t a WR established possession under those circumstances?
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 17, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions
NFL Official Review this week
Did not cover this play. Bummer.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
I still cannot find video of the catch, but a few photos (see below fold) I have seen show Tillman in contact, and I think it is safe to say he was before both Jennings’ feet came down. If that is the case, then Jennings would have had to remain control all the way to the ground and after contacting it. (he did not) Note: it does not matter that he was not going to the ground during the catch, only that he was contacted before both feet were down. That contact is what made control of the ball necessary all the way down.
The receiver still need to maintain possession when going to the ground even without contact (I think it was the week 1 review Pereira explained that).
I didn’t remember the interpretation of “contact before” both feet are down rules him to going to the ground.
Now, I have NFL gamepass, so I re-checked this (again!) and Tillman clearly gets one hand on Jennings shoulder, the same instand Jennings gets his first foot down, and as I explained in some previous posts, Jennings then gets his second foot down, and right before his “third foot” hits the ground the ball is knocked out by Tillman, so that is the case, Jennings was contacted before he had both feet down, and thereby ruled to be going to the ground, and clearly (like I stated before) the ball was knocked loose before he actually fell on the ground.
BleedsblueinMI, you’re probably right about the verbiage of the “football move” has been removed, I just tried to use it as an example (and it failed..)
But the call was stil correct, and Jennings was “going to the ground” (by contact) before his second foot hit the ground (then the ball was knocked loose)
(note to myself; next time, keep explanations simpler….)
Danwood… I don’t see any confusion at all from the officials (only some fans and the TV anouncers…) both the BJ and SJ or FJ (not sure what side it was on) are both very clear in signaling incomplete pass imediatly after they see the loose ball hit the ground, no delay what so ever. It was also a very quick review, and Carey explained what happened.
And yes, if this had been on the 5 yd line (or 40) it would have been ruled the same way, it would have been ruled the same way if the sequence was the excat same, because the officiating philsophie behind this rule is, like I’ve written about a 100 times, posting about this play, that you do not want to create cheap turnovers
I’m not so sure this would have been ruled a catch even i College, I still would have ruled him loosing possession before he “completed the catch”, since the timeframe he actually had possession was just a split second, and is going to the ground also as a result of his momentum, not just the contact. In High-School and younger I don’t know.
Turd .. (stop being your screen name…) they did not screw it up, Pereira has in this season alone explained calls where he stats the wrong call was made, so he’s not trying to hide this under the carpet or something.
Maybe they didn’t cover it since they have covered similar plays so many times already this year, or maybe they don’t even see it as a controversial call!
It might show up in the NFL.com bonus coverage edition, which usually is out sometimes during Friday morning.
If you watch Pereira in the week 10 piece I linked, that is his exact description
regarding when the going to the ground rule is invoked. If there is no contact, two feet down and control constitutes a catch. If there is contact, then he must maintain control even after contacting the ground. We are splitting hairs here, the way you described here is correct in my understanding of the rule.
I agree that Pereira has been forthcoming about incorrect calls. Again, in that linked tape of Pereira in week 10, the next thing he reviews is the Green Bay/Cowboys game in which MM challenged when he did not have a challenge. He said that was handled completely wrong, first by going to the replay hood and then by not hitting the Packers with a flag. It would have been a 15 yarder, by the way.
TedSimmons – if Tillman did not contact Jennings until after he had both feet down, then you would be correct. I don’t think this was the case, as Jarls describes above. Also, the running back diving into the end zone has nothing to do with this situation. That is a whole different rule altogether. That has nothing to do with possession, in that case it is a touchdown as soon as any part of the ball breaks the plane.
I don’t like this going to the ground rule, either. It really mucks things up. The written rule really doesn’t explain the situation, it takes the VP of Officiating to explain it. That says to me bad rule writing. I don’t fully understand why any catch isn’t two feet down (or other body part) with control. Must be some reason because they keep messing with it, but it’s not working.
The real argument is should the rule change and to what. I think a lot of fans would say it should change. My point is that is a different argument that is this a catch, b/c by the current rules, it is not.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Dec 17, 2009 8:08 AM CST up reply actions
I also agree that Pereira has been forthcoming (particularly since he decided to retire this offseason)...
… but I disagree that Tillman contacted Jennings before he had 2 feet down. That’s not how I remember seeing it when I watched the replay on my DVR (since deleted, unfortunately). I don’t want to sound conspiratorial here, but isn’t it odd that no one can find the video given the amount of coverage these games get?
And I disagree with the unwillingness to accept the RB comparison, because it’s the underpinnings of that rule, that possession over the goal line is a TD, that makes the ruling on the Jennings play incorrect. Possession and 2 feet down is a catch anywhere on the field, and possession in the endzone = play over. It’s only since the rule quoted above (which shouldn’t have been applied to this play factually) that the confusion among the refs has arisen.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 17, 2009 3:03 PM CST up reply actions
I’m with you on this one TSSC. When I thought about I also thought about the comparison to a Rb jumping and crosses the plain because from what I’ve always gathered, as soon as you have established possession of the ball in the endzone it’s a TD. Play done. So I guess I don’t see how Jennings falling to the ground AFTER he had already controlled the ball and gotten 2 feet down is applicable.
by packallday555 on Dec 17, 2009 3:43 PM CST up reply actions
No, Jennings has to take 30 steps, dunk the ball over the goal post, pick it up, and hand it to the ref
Then it’s a catch, and they’ll have a discussion to consider if it is a TD.
Thanks for posting that
So it’s cleared up haha…no catch.
by packallday555 on Dec 17, 2009 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
Pretty persuasive....
… though I’d still like to see the video. Particularly since his back foot is about to come off the ground as he strides forward, which still leaves time for him to have had both feet down in control of the ball, though it’s a much shorter time frame than I recall from watching it in motion.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 17, 2009 6:46 PM CST up reply actions
The phrase "going to the ground" is the key.
It means that possession is still ambiguous and that is why control must be maintained throughout and essentially until coming to a stop.
The rule states that because the receiver is “going to the ground”, possession is, by definition, not established. As explained by Pereira, if contacted by a defender before having control and having both feet down, the receiver is considered “going to the ground”.
The contrast is the running back diving into the end zone who already has possession before getting to the end zone. Possession for the running back is never in question.
And that's my problem with the rule...
… read your second paragraph. It’s completely circular. If a receiver is going to the ground, possession is not established. Contact by a defender means a a receiver is going to the ground. There’s nothing in those two sentences that defines possession of the ball, or why it is that possession of the ball should be defined differently on a pass than a run.
“The contrast is the running back diving into the end one who already has possession before getting to the end one. Possession by the running back is never in question.”
People keep saying that like it makes sense. It doesn’t. Essentially the argument means that if Jennings caught the ball on the one, had two feet down and ran into the endzone, at which point he was tackled (after crossing the line), fell down and dropped the ball as he fell, it’s six, but if all other facts are the same except that Jennings is already in the end zone when he catches the ball and gets two feet down before contact was made (because that’s what happened in my opinion), then we don’t know if it’s six until we see if the ball comes out when he falls over.
That doesn’t make any damn sense. I still think they’re misinterpreting their own rule, but even if you don’t, I think most would concede that the rule is unnecessarily nebulous and results in uneven enforcement by the refs, who seem completely confused as to what the rule means.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 18, 2009 4:36 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
You got it.
I think most would concede that the rule is unnecessarily nebulous and results in uneven enforcement by the refs
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Dec 18, 2009 7:51 AM CST up reply actions
rec'd
even if they are following their own rule, the rule itself is contradicatory (sp?)
See, this is what happens when the Sox bunt.
Discord is sown. Brother fights brother. Misunderstandings abound.
-TAEG
by blackoutsox on Dec 19, 2009 11:26 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
