The Plays in Question(plus a couple more)

Here is the rumble recovery that was disallowed.
The ref ruled that he did not survive contact with the ground, There are no angles that show that and seeing how it was ruled a fumble it should never have been overturned.

Now the next one is the "Simultaneous catch" My question here is, if he had to survive contact with the ground in the fist clip, why did he not have to survive it in the second? Regardless of who had possession or if it was simultaneous, based on the ruling of the first, the receiver did not survive contact and it should have been a pick

This one was a few plays before the TD. It was ruled interference and it was another bad call IMO...The commentator says it was a penalty because the defender did not look back towards the ball. Well in this play he did not have to because his arms are not up until the ball has passed and is in front of them.
Even if you disagree, I want to know why it took a full 25 seconds before the flag was thrown. Was it because the reviewer consistently motioned for a flag and the refs gave in?

This should have been roughing the passer.

shit disturber

Give me a "J"!

(wash, rinse, and repeat for E, A, L, O, U, S, and Y)

If you dont want to reply....fine but stay on topic

ro, here's my take.

  1. he was already falling. if he drops it when he hits the ground (minus defender), it's incomplete. so why call it a fumble because a guy got in the way.

  2. possession was established. twice. one foot was down, with possession established, touchdown. (and by the time the montreal player had sole possession, they were long out of bounds, which is irrelevant because someone already had the ball past the goal line).

  3. tough call to make. at game speed, it looked like arms were crossed and the defender wasn't looking at the ball. the rules say that it's interference.

  4. he reached for the QB as the ball was being thrown. Once he realized it (watch again), he let go. It's not like the defender has ABS installed... momentum was happening, and even if he never reached for him contact may have been made. If you've ever played the game (I have), there is so little time between when Calvillo releases to Jones letting go that you can't say he was trying to cause harm.

There's my mature take, if you accept.

  1. there was no video evidance to show that...It was rules a fumble and a TD.
  2. As I said before.... you cant rule surviving the ground for one and not the other
    3)It doesnt matter that he did not look back..Screening only applies when the ball is behind. It wasent....he raised his arms to knock the ball away after it passed....and again...why so long to make the call?
  3. Zero step rule and AC was clearly going out of bounds

#2 is different in the endzone. Once you have possession in the end zone it's a touchdown. Both had possession and the tie goes to the receiver. Touchdown, end of story. Just like the QB holding the ball over the goal line...that's a touchdown, even if he drops it a second later.

#4 - if he was going out of bounds, why did he throw the ball? he can't be attempting a pass and running out of bounds both, can he?

Running the ball into the endzone and pass receiving are 2 different things..
IN your example you are correct because his possession at the time the ball breaks the plain is not in question....
You have to survive contact with the ground no matter where you catch the pass. Had the ball popped loose as they hit the ground... It would have been ruled incomplete

in my opinion, dual possession was maintained until the montreal guy ripped the ball out... after they landed and rolled out of bounds. touchdown.

I’m with you 100% on the Wes Cates fumble, three steps with the ball CLEARLY in his possession. For it to be called not surviving contact is ridiculous.

On the simul catch I do believe I see the Rider dude with the ball in his possession with one foot down in the end zone ergo Rider TD as the rules are applied i believe, ball never hits the ground.

Thanks for the videos tho!

not in mine! :wink:

1 I can see your point and would like Higgins to come on and explain it.

  1. The ground did not jar the ball loose. Nothing jarred the ball loose. Had the ball come loose at the end of the play it would have been ruled incomplete because the ball did not survive contact. However, since the ball was pulled out by the defender, simultaneous contact gives the ball to the offensive player. Period.

  2. Watching the play, the defenders hands are there prior to the ball arriving and affected the receivers arms. Flag was thrown on the opposite side of the field so it could easily have been thrown and the announcers missed it because when the announcers mention it is right when the ref is heard on the loudspeaker system...a matter of 22 seconds after the play is done. It is not uncommon for th ref to announce the penalty anywhere between 20 and 30 seconds after the end of the play so even though the announcers missed it, the flag had to have been thrown at the time of the play for it to be announced by the ref within 22 seconds.

  3. I thought it should have been roughing as well but looking at the play, the release came less than 1/2 second before contact, the initial hit was in bounds and it is clear the defender held up as much as he could. Thus, no penalty.

2)the fact that the ball was pulled out means he did not have control of it...PLease dont say that he let go because he knew it was a TD
3) the defender has as much right to the ball as the reciever
4) zero steps

    • not when he's not looking at the ball
    • he pulled his hands back after AC threw it.

Let's solve #3 first. The flag actually did come out immediately, so that is a non-issue. I thought it was an okay call. Not as flagrant as some, but definately screening. You must look for the ball. It is not just about raising your arms.
I haven't looked at #4 yet, so won't comment, but I have seen the other two and there can be no doubt about the simultaneous catch. That one isn't worth the controversy. The Cates play is close, but I do believe they got it right. Someone said he took 3 steps? First, I doubt that. But even if a guy takes steps, that is not how control is determined. You could run down the entire length of the field, but if you are juggling the ball every step of the way, then drop it, it is incomplete.


The Cates Play was the only one in question...the question is did he have full control of the ball no matter how many steps he took...

Since the ball was not dropped and the ball was caught in the end zone by a similtaneous catch which goes to the offense ..TD

IF Calvillo did not throw the ball it would have been roughing the passer, either way Jones made no attempt on the follow through tackle..actually he let up.

The pass interference call was correct screening is pass interference

Well if the flag came out immediately(and I doubt it) why was the receiver motioning for a flag for so long?
Why were there boos instead of cheers from the crowd?
Why did the announcer comment how he wants a flag but is not going to get it?

There is no rule that says you must look for the ball. If that was the case, you would have PI on almost every incomplete pass. The rule states that you cannot raise your arms to block the receiver's vision with out looking for the ball, and it makes sense. You are raising your arms to catch the ball and not interfere, You cant catch it if you are not looking for it.

In this case the defender did no raise his arms to either catch the ball or knock it away until it passes them, There was no reason for him to look back because he was looking at the ball.

You are right about the number of steps, it is a non issue when it comes to possession and control. But control does not mean it has to be tucked up into his chest for to be controlled...He had it firmly in both hands and took 2 steps while it was under control... and again, there was no video evidence to dispute it.

How can I be screening if I am not between you and the ball?