Agreed. Collinsworth, in particular, seemed so fixated on the ball coming loose when it hit the ground in the end zone (and that aspect of the catch rule) that he wasn’t really looking at Ertz having taken three steps after catching the ball and crossing the plane.
You make it sound like this is the first time commentators have acted this stupid. It’s been happening for several years, last nice was just the biggest stage they dropped their idiocy on.
They reviewed every part of the catch, because that’s what you do. Did Ertz ever bobble the ball before he dove for the end zone? Nope, but that’s a minute or two of replays to confirm. Now we make sure he was actually running and dove, not falling a la Steelers. Yep, he was running, but there’s another minute or two. Now we’re closing in on 5 minutes, and Collinsworth has been a drooling moron that entire time.
It’s been noted elsewhere how atrocious Collinsworth was last night. Between the “I don’t know what a catch is anymore” idiocy to every play action pass being an RPO, he would have been better replaced with a dead mic. This is the guy who claimed the Eagles would have been better off punting instead of going for it on 4th and 2 down by 1, AFTER the Eagles had converted the first down.
One thing I don’t understand…
Let’s say that Ertz didn’t catch the ball, run, and dive into the end zone. Let’s say he caught it at the 1 yd line and fell into the end zone and everything else happened as it played out.
From what I recall, the ball came out and popped into the air. But it fell back onto him and he caught it again (or you might say he “completed” the catch at that point if he hadn’t already been a runner). I don’t believe it hit the ground to get knocked loose, he did. Wouldn’t that be a catch anyway? I’ve seen cases where a guy tries to catch, the ball pops up, and he gets it on the second try and succeeds before it hits the turf. That’s a catch.
from what I recall, it touched the ground, so it would require an analysis of whether the gound assisted in the catch. If it didn’t, then it’s still a good catch.
The funny part of that was that they both agreed heading into commercial break while watching the last replay before the commercial, both almost simultaneously saying “It’s out” (referring to the ball).
When they came back, as they watched another replay, Michaels got a little more diplomatic about it and was like “I’m not so sure/I don’t know” and Collinsworth was the one that threw up his hands and said “I don’t even know what a catch is anymore”.
I didn’t think that play was all that complicated, and Collinsworth kept referencing the Jesse James play, but that play wasn’t exactly the same.
I could be remembering wrong. I should look up a replay of it.
My recollection was seeing the ball hit the ground and pop out of his hands up int the air. If my memory is correct I think it would have been incomplete.
Maybe because like me he’s seen many calls this year that looked like catches but were reversed? Taking two steps with the ball does not seem to be enough unless you are clutching it like a 1950s running back.
I think it was pretty clear that the ground caused it to pop out. If it was ruled that the ball was touching the ground while he didn’t have control that would have been an incomplete pass. It was ruled that the pass was complete before that so it didn’t matter.
I agree with the call but there have been multiple calls this year that I thought were clear too but were called incomplete. I’m glad they got it right in the big game. I hope they work on the rule in the off season.
I just want to say “thank you” to everyone expressing their dismay over why there was ever a question that Ertz was a runner. I thought I was losing my mind when Collinsworth/Michaels kept saying it’d be overturned.
Their banter was so bizarre that I started thinking Cris Collinsworth was being directed through his earpiece to disagree just because disagreement makes better TV. He seemed unwilling to respond to the talk about how Ertz became a runner.
The call was a no brainer. If it had been reversed it would have been one of the greatest officiating outrages in the history of major professional sports. You don’t even hear Patriots fans complaining about it and they’re the ones whose team lost the frigging Super Bowl as a result.
I do not understand the comparison to the Jesse James play. That was a tough call, but is clearly a different type of play; James does not become a runner the way Ertz did. There’s a different argument on that play, but it’s not the “becomes a runner” argument.
Yeah, there was a point during the review of that play when I turned to the other people in the room with me, and said, “if they rule that he hadn’t yet become a runner, and that it’s an incomplete pass, the NFL needs to just blow up their rulebook, because it makes no sense at all anymore.”
FWIW here’s the actual rule for when a receiver “becomes a runner”…
“A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps”
Which sure seems to describe what Ertz did on this play.
As always, The Onion has the best review of the situation: Flustered Father Struggling To Answer All Of Son’s Questions About What Catch Is.
There were numerous tweets wondering how many pictures Collinsworth has of Tom Brady on his wall. Between that, his insistence that the earlier touchdown by Clement should be overturned, and his clear dejection after Brady fumbled, it was clear where his sympathies lie.
Why can’t the rule be, no matter how many times the ball is jarred loose in the process of the catch, no matter how many Ertz-like bobbles, as long as the receiver has it in his possession at the end, and the ball never hits the ground at any point, it’s a catch?
That is the rule, essentially. But the ball did hit the ground (just after breaking the plane) - that’s why Collinsworth was so flummoxed (aside from the fact that he couldn’t wrap his head around the fact that Ertz had already caught the ball 5 yards ago and became a runner).
Well, that is the rule currently. That’s assuming the receiver stays in bounds the whole time, and probably a couple other qualifications, but in general, if the ball never touches the ground, that’s a catch according to the current rules.
Of course in Ertz’s case, the ball DID hit the ground. And if the ball hits the ground and comes loose because of that before the receiver completes the catch, that’s nearly always an incomplete, even if the receiver gets it back under control without it touching the ground again. In Ertz’s case, that didn’t matter because the referees ruled that he had already completed the catch while upright so the catch rules no longer applied.
IMHO, that was pretty clearly the correct call by the referees, but not so blindingly obvious that reviewing it was totally ludicrous either. If he’d been bobbling the ball when he turned and only gotten full control as he was falling/diving (which could have been easily missed in real time), it would have been an incomplete.
Loach – Do you have a suggested change?
I’d think you’d have some understanding of how hard it is to write a clear simple law that still covers every conceivable situation in the ‘correct’ way.
As noted upthread, the play was absolutely going to be reviewed, because all plays that are ruled to be touchdowns by the officials on the field are automatically put through a replay review.
Well, yes, and no. All scoring plays and turnovers are checked by the replay assistant, who then decides if a review is needed.
Fair point, and thank you for the clarification.