Officiating/Media observation

[RavensDomination]

The last two weeks there have been calls that have brought on a lot of national media attention - the Gresham TD and the chop block against the 49ers. Both calls negated TD's in close games. Both calls probably could have went either way but happened to go our way.

 

The national media has been talking about both extensively, especially the usual Raven haters (Dukes, Bayless, et al). It's funny, I don't remember them commenting on the numerous times we have been on the losing end of questionable calls. The Holmes TD in Baltimore...the Heap OPI in Cincy...the Gaffney TD during the Patriots undefeated season...etc. You could point out a ton more, but the point is I didn't hear any uproar when the Ravens weren't getting these calls. Being a small market team works against us in the media that is for sure.

[cravnravn]

The Stealer Fanbase is loaded with thousands of Skip Bayless' running around.

[vmax]

Correct some of the rules.

 

On these amazing sideline and end zone catches, the player has to go through some extreme physical gyrations to get his feet in bounds while controling the ball. As a result of that it puts him out of control while falling down out of bounds and in a new situation where now, after he has established an in bounds catch, he then has to establish control once he's left the field of play. That's asking too much.

Players are going to loose control of the ball out of bounds as a result of putting themselves in the awkward position of making a fantastic catch. Whatever happens out of bounds should be irrelevent because he has left the field of play.

 

Just ignore Dickless Bayless...what an asshole.

[RavensDomination]

I think the rule is good, they should have to maintain possession out of bounds. That is one of the few rules that favors the defense, so being a Ravens fan I hope they don't change it.

 

Side note: I liked Jamie Dukes calling Flacco a "game manger" even after the 49ers win. So, so stupid.

[papasmurfbell]

I think the rule is good, they should have to maintain possession out of bounds. That is one of the few rules that favors the defense, so being a Ravens fan I hope they don't change it.

 

Side note: I liked Jamie Dukes calling Flacco a "game manger" even after the 49ers win. So, so stupid.

 

Then a runner should have to maintain control going over the goalline. If you can just pop the tip of the ball across and the D knocks it away but you already have the TD that is crazy. The rules need to be the same all over the field.

[RavensDomination]

 

Then a runner should have to maintain control going over the goalline. If you can just pop the tip of the ball across and the D knocks it away but you already have the TD that is crazy. The rules need to be the same all over the field.

 

The difference with the Gresham call is that they said he didn't have complete control until after he was in the end zone which is why they ruled it incomplete since the ball obviously came out. A receiver who has already established possession can just put the ball over the goal line just like a RB can.

[papasmurfbell]

I have seen it to many times where they take receptions away when they should have been awarded. The rules are to complex and need to be redone.

[RavensDomination]

It seems pretty simple to me. You need to maintain possession all the way through the catch even if you go out of bounds. Why should out of bounds be any different than in bounds? Same with the end zone. If you catch it in the end zone you should have to maintain possession all the way through just like anywhere else on the field for it to be considered a TD.

[papasmurfbell]

But you can carry the ball and put it out so the D can smack it away for 100 yds and that is a fumble but not on the inch over the white line.

[Spen]

In my opinion the Gresham TD (and the Johnson one from last year) should both have been catches and TDs. I know by rule they are not but that rule needs to be changed. They both had control, two feet in bounds in the end zone - the play should be over right then. Just like it is over for RBs and QBs who extend the ball over the goal line then fumble.

 

Its a nonsensical rule IMO, one that is taking a catch - and in both instances the vast majority of talking heads believe its a catch except for this rule - and taking it away from the player. It hurts the game.

 

Imagine how pissed off we all would be to have a key TD taken away like that.

[RavenMad]

If the ground can't cause a fumble then how can it cause an incomplete catch? If the receiver has control before he hits the ground then it should be a catch. That seems a lot simpler to me.

[Guest BallTMore]

I actually like the rule the way it is. It sucks if you lose the call, but I would have accepted it if it happened to the Ravens.

 

My interpretation: A running back establishes control as soon as he is handed the ball. If he is bobbling the ball around and sticks it across the line and loses control, it will be called a fumble.

 

A WR establishes control at a different point. Gresham did not have control until he was leaning forward and on his way down, therefore he has to maintain full control when hitting the ground. Otherwise, a WR that touches the ball in the endzone can argue he has control when the ball was across the goal-line. If Gresham caught the ball the first time and went in, THEN fell down it would have been a TD.

[RavensDomination]

If the ground can't cause a fumble then how can it cause an incomplete catch? If the receiver has control before he hits the ground then it should be a catch. That seems a lot simpler to me.

 

So you are saying if a receiver jumps in the air, gets "control" of the ball, falls down, the ball hits the ground and comes out, it should be a catch? This would dramatically change the game and favor the offense. Plus it brings up the point of what constitutes "control" as you put it? One hand on the ball near the body, two hands on the ball, ball held close to the body with fingertips, etc. You could go on all day, every official could have a different interpretation of what constitutes control. It's much easier to say the ball can't hit the ground at any point during the catch...whether its in bounds out of bounds in the end zone out of the end zone wherever.

 

The difference with the RB is that he already HAS possession of the ball...so they say when his knee or hip or whatever is down the ground can't cause the fumble. The receiver is still in the act of possession.

[RavensDomination]

In my opinion the Gresham TD (and the Johnson one from last year) should both have been catches and TDs. I know by rule they are not but that rule needs to be changed. They both had control, two feet in bounds in the end zone - the play should be over right then. Just like it is over for RBs and QBs who extend the ball over the goal line then fumble.

 

Its a nonsensical rule IMO, one that is taking a catch - and in both instances the vast majority of talking heads believe its a catch except for this rule - and taking it away from the player. It hurts the game.

 

Imagine how pissed off we all would be to have a key TD taken away like that.

 

We've been robbed plenty of times by way more obviously bad calls than that. Plus when you watch the Gresham catch by the time he had control he was in the end zone meaning he had to maintain control the entire way for it to be considered a catch. If he had possession short of the end zone and then stuck the ball out over it would have been OK.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=rYxkeJNNSkw Watch the 1:00 mark very close. When he finally gets possession the ball is in the end zone, so it's just like if he were to be standing in the end zone while making the catch. When he slammed the ball on the ground at the end (1:14 mark) and it came out, quite obviously, it is no longer a catch.

[BengalBilly]

In my opinion the Gresham TD (and the Johnson one from last year) should both have been catches and TDs. I know by rule they are not but that rule needs to be changed. They both had control, two feet in bounds in the end zone - the play should be over right then. Just like it is over for RBs and QBs who extend the ball over the goal line then fumble.

 

Its a nonsensical rule IMO, one that is taking a catch - and in both instances the vast majority of talking heads believe its a catch except for this rule - and taking it away from the player. It hurts the game.

 

Imagine how pissed off we all would be to have a key TD taken away like that.

I need an smiley which depicts a standing ovation. At least someone here gets it.

[Spen]

 

We've been robbed plenty of times by way more obviously bad calls than that. Plus when you watch the Gresham catch by the time he had control he was in the end zone meaning he had to maintain control the entire way for it to be considered a catch. If he had possession short of the end zone and then stuck the ball out over it would have been OK.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=rYxkeJNNSkw Watch the 1:00 mark very close. When he finally gets possession the ball is in the end zone, so it's just like if he were to be standing in the end zone while making the catch. When he slammed the ball on the ground at the end (1:14 mark) and it came out, quite obviously, it is no longer a catch.

 

I understand where he got control of the ball and I understand that per the rule the correct call was made. I just don't like the rule. I can only think of a few times where this rule has come up so if they changed it I hardly think it would dramatically change the game.

 

If that exact same play happened against us and we lost there would be posters here posting conspiracy theories and stating how the league hates us.,

[RavensDomination]

 

I understand where he got control of the ball and I understand that per the rule the correct call was made. I just don't like the rule. I can only think of a few times where this rule has come up so if they changed it I hardly think it would dramatically change the game.

 

If that exact same play happened against us and we lost there would be posters here posting conspiracy theories and stating how the league hates us.,

 

Well like I said, we've been screwed enough so it's nice to have a few go our way. The difference here is that the rule was correctly applied it's not like we got some obviously bogus call.

[BengalBilly]

 

Well like I said, we've been screwed enough so it's nice to have a few go our way. The difference here is that the rule was correctly applied it's not like we got some obviously bogus call.

No. It wasn't a bogus call.

[ForceEight]

I actually like the rule the way it is. It sucks if you lose the call, but I would have accepted it if it happened to the Ravens.

 

My interpretation: A running back establishes control as soon as he is handed the ball. If he is bobbling the ball around and sticks it across the line and loses control, it will be called a fumble.

 

A WR establishes control at a different point. Gresham did not have control until he was leaning forward and on his way down, therefore he has to maintain full control when hitting the ground. Otherwise, a WR that touches the ball in the endzone can argue he has control when the ball was across the goal-line. If Gresham caught the ball the first time and went in, THEN fell down it would have been a TD.

This is exactly right. Maybe the rule needs to be clarified (using something more specific than "a football move", etc.), but it's correct in interpretation.

[cravnravn]

So with the new rule, Jamal Lewis TD in the SB would have been a fumble. Hmmmmm

[RavenMad]

It's much easier to say the ball can't hit the ground at any point during the catch...whether its in bounds out of bounds in the end zone out of the end zone wherever.

 

That's exactly the point. The ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver maintains "control" throughout the process. The reason the Megatron catch and the Gresham catch were ruled incomplete was Megatron let the ball come out of his hand after planting the ball on the ground and in 1 replay you can see the ball fractionally slide out of Gresham's hand as he hits the ground before he regains full control. If Megatron had got up with the ball still in his hand its a catch. If we don't get that 1 replay from behind Gresham's is a catch also.

 

You deem a RB to have posession when he receives the hand off. At what point during the hand off does he have posession? If it is moving around in his grip after the handoff and he goes to ground and it comes out will the refs not deem it to be already coming out and therefore it is a fumble. How do they deem the ball was not secured? Is that a judgement call? The process of a catch is not too disimilar to a handoff. The QB throws the ball to the receiver, he catches it, has it secured, 2 feet in bounds then surely he has posession at that point in the same manner as a RB. What happens next? He hits the ground and the ball comes out. Is that not the same process as the RB receiving the handoff and then going to ground? Is the pass not a version of a handoff but in a grander scale.

 

To be honest, I don't really care whether the rule is changed or not as long as the refs get it right consistently.

[ForceEight]

So with the new rule, Jamal Lewis TD in the SB would have been a fumble. Hmmmmm

It wouldn't have. That's what BallT was saying in his last post. There is a difference between running the ball and catching it. When you run the ball, you establish possession when it's handed to you. When you throw it, possession isn't established until you complete the catch; if you don't complete the catch, you don't score.