In today’s rams/bucs game, the bucanneers had a play reversed on replay. it was a pass that was apparently caught, but later ruled incomplete.
Football rules confuse me horribly, so I’m asking you on what basis was the play reversed? The man caught the ball, fell down, the ball hit the ground and shifted slightly in his hand. He appeared to me to be in control of the ball the entire time.
Does the ball hitting the ground cause it to be ruled incomplete, or did the officials screw this up?
That reversal was horrible!
May as well take replay away if they’re going to reverse calls that were correct in the first place.
Yer pal,
Satan
My opinion is that the officials got it right, but I wished they would have let it go since the ruling on the field was a complete pass.
Bad call, simple as that. I was pulling for the Rams, but hate to see it end that way. I don’t know what the ref was looking at.
I think the refs get clouded in the complete/incomplete decision by the many judgement calls. The things to watch for are “possesion” which is a judgement call based on several criteria such as if the ball was in control, if it hits the ground, if he had two feet in bounds, whether he took a step or not, and probably some other minute details that I haven’t heard of. The refs might get into the habit of thinking if it hits the ground as being the paramount factor. Then neglecting that the reciever can gain control before it touches the ground. Basically, if that catch is incomplete in that game then all catches where the reciever falls to the ground must be done with the reciver on his back. The ball is bigger than his hands, so if he falls forwrd its always gonna touch the ground. I think the intended spirit of the rule is that a player may not trap the ball on the ground, but if the ball touches the grond while he has control of it, it should be a catch.
This winded babbling basically means that I think it was a shity call, and i can’t imagine what the ref was looking at.
As has been pointed out above, the rule is that the player must have control of the ball when he goes down. There is no rule that forbids the ball touching the ground AFTER the player has control of it.
The reversal was based on the judgement that the player did not have control, that he was ‘bobbling’ or ‘juggling’ the ball on the way down. The replay I saw didn’t exactly suport that interpretation… I was very confused they even looked at it, since a team cannot request a review inside the two minute warning of either half. The officials decided on thier own to review (and ultimately reverse) the play.
Strange call.
Bad call, it looked like a catch. Instant replay should be gotten rid of.
Hmmm. Ok, so because they make one call that (some of) you guys dislike, they should trash the whole system and go back to making more bad calls because they don’t have the system at all?
(I feel a Great Debate coming on…)
David B: In short, yes.
I think that allowing the refs to review and change a call that they made is a bad idea. In soccer, which I ref, there have been numerous attempts to try to allow instant replay and they have always been defeated. There are two main reasons for this:
1)Continuity- Soccer isn’t very well suited for sudden stopping and starting. This isn’t a problem in football b/c play stops every 30 seconds anyway.
2) Refs are human and their ability to make split second calls (mostly right, sometimes wrong) adds a degree of humanness to the game that allowing instant replays would take away. Each ref might call a play slightly differently depending on their personality.
No, I support instant replay… as baffling as this use of it was, I firmly believe that the game is better with it than without it.
It’s worth remembering they won with only 11 points. Two of those points were a safety, from the snap that went over the quarterback’s head. Not a good offensive effort! One play could have reversed the outcome – any offense at all for Tampa Bay, and the Buccaneers would be making hotel reservations in Atlanta right now. One touchdown. Geez, even two field goals. With that as a backdrop, the apparent error of the officials grows a bit. When Emanuel caught that ball, the Bucs were eleven yards closer to the end zone with 47 seconds and one time-out remaining. They could very easily have put the ball into the end zone.
But this doesn’t show that instant replay is bad – just that it needs to be used properly.
Conspiracy theorists: I’m sure this was all done by the Mafia, who control the refs because of the huge amount of money on the game, right?
I offer no opinion about soccer.
As to football, I am not remotely moved by the “humanness” argument. If the rule says that the touchdown is scored when the ball crosses the plane of the goalline, then we should absolutely aid the ref’s flawed human perception with whatever technical accuracy we can bring to bear. It’s frustrating beyond belief to see the replay clearly indicate one thing, and the refs on the field call another.
Replay good. Mistakes bad.
The Bucs got robbed, plain and simple! Guess a TB-Tenn Super Bowl didn’t appeal to those unseen characters sitting way up there with their almighty push-buttons. They sure put the breaks on that winning drive … incomplete, my ass!
Fix! Fix!
The only argument I heard anybody make on TV Sunday as to why the call may have been reversed was by ESPN SportsCenter anchor Dan Patrick, who noted that the point of the football was the first thing to touch the ground.
The referee apparantly ruled the receiver didn’t have possession of the pass at the time it touched the ground, thus making it incomplete.
That is incorrect, however. He clearly did have a good grasp and control of the pass. It was indeed a very bad call that had a very significant impact on the game’s outcome.
I’m not sure how I feel about instant replay. But if we are still going to have controversial calls that cause fan outrage, maybe we should have those calls on a ref’s judgement only, like in other sports, and preserve the flow of the game.
“In much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” - Ecclesiastes 1:18
The NFL’s position whether you agree with it or not is something like this: The receiver caught the ball in the air while diving for it, as he fell to the ground (as a result of the dive) the ball touched the ground. The dive and subsequent fall were all considered one continuous act.
If the receiver had caught the ball and then was able to take a step with it, then it would have been a catch.
However, it’s more fun to argue. It gives everybody hope.
Based on the discussion and quotes in today’s newspapers, the issue was decided by the referee on the basis that the point of the ball touched the ground unsupported by a hand. Thus, the ground helped the receiver ‘catch’ the ball.
There are two thoughts I wrestle with while trying to digest this situation. The first is that the replay official upstairs, who made the determination to have the call reviewed, was Jerry Markbreit, a VERY experienced and usually quite good referee. If both he and the referee on the field concluded that this was what happened, AND that that means there was no valid catch, I am tempted to yield to their very superior understanding of the nuances of the rules of football.
On the other hand, I believe that the replay rules require that the evidence be conclusive to allow the call on the field to be reversed. In the Tennessee - Buffalo playoff game, the point was made that, had the official on the field ruled the lateral to have gone forward, the replays probably wouldn’t have supported a reversal, because they weren’t conclusive either way. Therefore, for the call Sunday to be reversed, there had to be conclusive evidence that there was no catch. Unless the issue of what hits first (ball or hand) is absolutly dispositive on the issue, I don’t think the replays are sufficient to support the reversal.
Just so you know my personal bias, I will tell you that I am from St. Louis. I was born and raised there and lived there for 32 years. I now live in L.A. I most definitely wanted the Rams to win, and I am THRILLED beyond words that they did. GO RAMS!!
That reversal still sucked!
I hated to see that happen, because it almost makes the victory not as sweet.
However… I have watched enough football to know that there is hardly a game where the bad calls are only one-sided. If you want to speculate that the Bucs might have won had that pass not been ruled incomplete, then you could also speculate that they may not have even been in a position to win even if it had been ruled complete, had other previous calls not been made against the Rams, which may also have been bad calls, which might have otherwise allowed the Rams to have racked up a higher score to that point. And no, I can’t site any bad calls against the Rams that happened specifically, but we’re speculating here. Maybe, just maybe, there was a bad call that no one caught or no one challenged.
The Bucs had 4 quarters to take advantage of good field position and still only managed to accumulate 6 points with 2 field goals. Who’s to really say that even if that pass had been ruled complete that they’d have gotten more than just another field goal (if that)? Both teams made some major blunders on their own (turnovers, fumbles and the like), and the Rams certainly didn’t play their best game ever. But they kicked the Bucs’ butts in defense, not allowing them to score a single touchdown the entire game (even if you only count up until the last 47 seconds).
Bad calls are a part of football. I think they hurt and benefit all teams equally. I certainly didn’t hear any of the Bucs, or even their coach for that matter, arguing the call.
That reversal was a bad call, but it’s not the reason the Bucs lost that game. I wish the completed pass would have stood. Then no one would be begrudging one of the best teams in football their much deserved and hard-fought win (because I’m confident they would have won anyway).
GO RAMS!!!
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
Shayna, you are, of course, completely right.
Over the course of a season, bad calls undoubtedly even out – and as you point out, the Bucs had a long time to make something happen and they didn’t.
That said, I think there’s a very understandable reaction when a bad call robs YOUR team of something, even if the ‘something’ is highly speculative.
It’s appropriate to address this, though, if only in an effort to understand what, if anything, went wrong. DSYoung is right on the money when he notes that the review needs to be conclusive to overturn a call on the field. No expert I (except a nearly-lifelong football fan) but they showed us that catch about ten times… and I saw nothing remotely conclusive about it.
It’s things like this that cause owners to vote against instant replay.
This going off a suspect memory. . .
But, I recall the replay as showing the football sorta lying on top of the guys palms, not cradled against his body.
If the ball touched the ground first in that case, then it should not have been a catch.
I think that it is stupid that the coaches must waste one of their timeouts to challenge a play. The refs should just decide wether a replay is needed. They do that in hockey, and for the most part it works.
We must blame them and cause a fuss before somebody thinks of blaming us.
Sheila Broflofski
I agree with DSY, despite whether or not he caught the ball (which I believe he did) there is the fact that the rule calls for “conclusive evidence needed to over-rule a ruling made on the field”. The ruling on the field was a caught pass, and I sure did not see any conclusive evidence to the contrary. I am pro-instant replay, but the decision to review the play combined with the refs agreement that the ball was not caught have me wondering about foul play as well. My friends and I were stunned when the play was reviewed, and speechless when it was called incomplete. The fact that there has been so little said about this in the sports media is quite baffling. I am not a fan of either team in this case, but fair is fair and this was not. It was the difference between 3rd and 10 or 3rd and 23. It clearly had a great impact on the outcome of a championship game. Sad . . .
“Solos Dios basta” . . . but a little pizza won’t hurt.
Sure, but you’re missing some very vital points here. 1.) The call was conclusive to the referee who called it. 2.) Eliminating the instant replay is not going to minimize bad calls happening. If anything, it’ll increase them, because the margin for human error is so much greater without the benefit of viewing plays at 10 different angles. 3.) That one “bad” call (and I put that in quotes because having read the above explanation, I’m not so sure it was bad afterall) did not, as claimed by several posters here, have a “significant imact” on the outcome of the game. It MIGHT have changed the outcome, but it is so highly speculative that calling it significant is just plain wrong, especially when you consider that… 4.) The Bucs’ own quarterback doesn’t blame their loss on one supposedly bad call.
King is a rookie quarterback and did an awesome job leading his team to the playoffs. He has a lot to be commended for, as does the Bucs’ defense for holding the Rams to their lowest score since early last year.
But if you want to “understand what, if anything, went wrong,” here’s a start. The Buc’s failed to score touchdowns on two trips inside the St. Louis 20 yard line (one of them at the 12 - and a first down, no less!). They had a costly delay of game penalty against them which led to them being forced to punt the ball away, and King was sacked five times by a superior Rams defense.
King is even quoted as having said that his team “[didn’t hold] up its end,” and that he would have served his team better if he’d have thrown the ball away to avoid lost yardage on two of the sacks. He further went on to say he “obviously didn’t play well enough for us to win.”
The only people I hear complaining about ONE call in an hour of actual play are fans. The team that lost can clearly see where many errors and missed opportunities cost them the win, not just one call.
If I were a coach on a football team, I’d tell my players to expect at least one bad call to go against them during the game, and NOT to blame a loss, if they suffered one, on ONE single call. Plan on it, and bust your butts to score on every drive so that one call CAN’T be the difference between winning and losing. It’s going to happen. Play as though you expect it. Apparently the professionals in this sport understand that concept.
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank