What a terrible call by that clueless ref

[SOUTHPHILLYBUDDA6]

HE HAD 2 FEET DOWN PLUS HIS HIP BEFORE THE BALL MOVED!!!!!!!
I GUESS THE NFL STILL LOVES TO SCREW AL DAVIS ANYTIME THEY COULD
:sadbb:
THAT REF SHOLD BE FIRED

 

[romecloneout]

agree it was clearly a td

 

[Kevin36]

Guess the Ref don't want the game to go over 1st halve

 

[bigtex]

F*kin blind bastards

 

[jackleg]

was a td clearly anybody who says otherwise has money on the other side bullshit call..... even if I had money on the other side I honestly would say it still was a catch

 

[billhill999]

Have no money riding on that call, must say, the call was total bullshit.
That's a TD 100 out of 100 times.

 

[m0om0o45]

Fuck

 

[quantumleap]

Where have you guys been the last few years??? I've seen dozens of "catches" where a receiver even goes out of bounds and when he hits the ground with possession he loses the ball. No catch.

Same thing for "catches" in the end zone. If you don't control possession even after hitting the ground it's no catch.

 

[PokerKingJim]

The rule in the NFL states that the receiver must maintain possession all the way to the ground. 2 feet and a hip down is irrelevant. He has to keep control of the ball when he hits the ground. The ball did move a bit when he hit the ground. I do not have a rooting interest but it was a close call that could have went either way, IMO.

 

[PokerKingJim]

I've seen dozens of "catches" where a receiver even goes out of bounds and when he hits the ground with possession he loses the ball.

Agreed. It's a dumb rule IMO but that's the rule

 

[jordan17]

I have Sd...but that was clearly a Td...

 

[DetectiveMcNulty]

The rule in the NFL states that the receiver must maintain possession all the way to the ground. 2 feet and a hip down is irrelevant. He has to keep control of the ball when he hits the ground. The ball did move a bit when he hit the ground. I do not have a rooting interest but it was a close call that could have went either way, IMO.

In that case it wasn't enough to overturn the call then, if it would have been originally called incomplete I could see the reasoning.

 

[TheGeauxt]

this logic would apply to a diving catch.....when you come down with both feet, in the end zone, with the ball, it is a catch......that's why the zebra had to make the bullshit argument that he was transitioning the ball......you don't transition the ball when you are across the goal line....terrible call

 

[3peet]

Only my Raiders man. As good as we look tonight I know we won't be able to pull it off and half of it cause I expect the refs to fuck us again atleast 1 more time tonight.

 

[PokerKingJim]

Even in the end zone, you have to come down with the ball. it's an odd rule but it's the rule. A catch and 2 feet in doesn't complete the catch. You have to maintain control even after you hit the ground.

 

[TheGeauxt]

there is way too much room for interpretation in that rule. I guess that's the way the NFL likes it....F alll zebras

 

[Frank23]

ARE YOU FUCK'N KID'N ME??? NO TOUCHDOWN?? HUH:think2:

REFS OVER THERE EAT'N FUCK'N PATATO CHIPS @) AND MISSED THE DAMN PLAY

YO REF! :youmad:

 

[ItsnotmeItsu]

I understand the control possesion rule, but when a running back runs the ball in, all he has to do is have the ball "break the plane" then it doesn't matter what happens. I would think that after he made the catch, both feet are down, play over...

Obviously different between running the ball in and catching it in the endzone, still a crappy rule

 

[quantumleap]

Agreed. It's a dumb rule IMO but that's the rule

I agree. It's a dumb rule.

 

[Teaser411]

what i dun understand is what about the WRs who catch in end zone with 2 feet in and let the ball go, if thats a TD then why does he need possession of the ball falling, he had his both feet in bounce with possession b4 falling.. UGLY CALL