PDA

View Full Version : Jacoby's challenged TD catch...


kwayshauntay
09-21-2009, 02:19 AM
Was the right call made?

I've heard talk about a similar play that happened in the Raiders game last week in which the play was ruled an incompletion, but didn't see it.

What do the rules say?

Scooter
09-21-2009, 02:29 AM
i dont know the rulebook so i cant say with certainty but it appeared to me that they got the call correct. the receiver had posession of the ball when he was downed by contact. once his jacoby's knee hit the ground while he had control of the ball, the play was over - whether he rolled or did summersaults afterwards and the ball came loose doesnt matter because once he hit the ground with a knee, elbow, or his body that was it.

YellerLotYeller
09-21-2009, 02:32 AM
If anything his knee was down at the one yard line...but I'm not complaining.

Andrew6
09-21-2009, 02:32 AM
Jacoby has a knack for screwing up so they probably just felt bad for him.

Scooter
09-21-2009, 02:33 AM
If anything his knee was down at the one yard line...but I'm not complaining.

yes, but the ball was over the goalline.

Scooter
09-21-2009, 02:34 AM
watching it again, both his knee and elbow hit the ground with posession.

YellerLotYeller
09-21-2009, 02:37 AM
watching it again, both his knee and elbow hit the ground with posession.

I'll have to check it out again before I make my final ruling.

texansdrummer
09-21-2009, 03:58 AM
According to the criteria re: the Raider play.....(as a Texan die-hard), this should NOT have been a TD. The rule is BS....IMO. It's not right to have a different set of rules for a reception in the endzone vs. the rest of the field, much less be able to merely break the plane of the goal line and not be subject to the rules of possession that exist in the EZ. This rule needs to be changed.....amazing that it's been such an issue, seemingly all of a sudden...this season.

Grams
09-21-2009, 06:08 AM
It was a reception before the end zone. Jacoby turned and stretched the ball over the goal line. His knee hit the 1 yard line the ball was over the goal line. Then his elbow hit the ground and he landed on top of the defender then rolled over the defender.

It was not a pass into the endzone. He had clear possession when the ball crossed the endzone and when his knee toughed the ground.

HJam72
09-21-2009, 06:25 AM
IMO, he should have been down in the endzone when he hit the ground on his back and kept possession. He lost the ball rolling around right after his upper torso hit the ground. I know that's not the rules, and rules are rules, but that's just how I think the rules ought to be, regardless of end zone or regular field of play.

I guess the refs screwed up and called it right, regardless of the rules, lol.

ObsiWan
09-21-2009, 07:07 AM
IMO, he should have been down in the endzone when he hit the ground on his back and kept possession. He lost the ball rolling around right after his upper torso hit the ground. I know that's not the rules, and rules are rules, but that's just how I think the rules ought to be, regardless of end zone or regular field of play.

I guess the refs screwed up and called it right, regardless of the rules, lol.

That's kind of the way I saw it too.
Good call.
...especially since it went our way
:D

TimeKiller
09-21-2009, 07:27 AM
It was my understanding that once the ball broke the plane it's a touchdown. Immediately the play is over. He had two hands on the ball with a guy hanging on him, a knee down, an elbow down, a defender downing him all with the ball breaking the plane. I'd have been alright with a ruling that ball was on the half yard line or whatever but this was clearly a catch.

Blake
09-21-2009, 07:37 AM
It was a reception before the end zone. Jacoby turned and stretched the ball over the goal line. His knee hit the 1 yard line the ball was over the goal line. Then his elbow hit the ground and he landed on top of the defender then rolled over the defender.

It was not a pass into the endzone. He had clear possession when the ball crossed the endzone and when his knee toughed the ground.

This is exactly right. Jacoby caught the ball in the field of play, with possesion, the ball crossed the goal line.

The Raiders game, Murphy caught the ball in the endzone. When that happens you must maintain control of the ball basically until you hand it to the ref. You may not lose it even after your elbow hits, or whatever.

Remember the David Carr goal line play against the Jags when he just reached the ball over the goal line, then had it knocked loose? That is how Jacoby's play was called. Doesnt matter what happens after the ball crossed the goal line for 1/100th of a second.

Case closed. Close the book. The play was called correctly and is no way similar or related to the Raiders endzone catch.

4Texans
09-21-2009, 08:24 AM
I'm sure Fisher has already been on the phone with the League office this morning about this play, and JJ's bobbled punt return / fumble call..........

Dread-Head
09-21-2009, 08:27 AM
Sorry, I saw the aforementioned play. It looked like the ball broke the plane before his knee hit the ground. But what do I know.

brakos82
09-21-2009, 08:31 AM
I'm sure Fisher has already been on the phone with the League office this morning about this play, and JJ's bobbled punt return / fumble call..........

He said on the local radio show that he realized after the fact that they were right... but it's still a silly rule as it is.

TheRealJoker
09-21-2009, 08:37 AM
I think having an elbow down counts as 2 feet. When Jacoby's elbow went down the ball had crossed the plain and he maintained posession until he rolled over.

kwayshauntay
09-21-2009, 09:20 AM
Thanks for the responses everyone.

For reference, I found the two plays on youtube.

Louis Murphy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE

Jacoby Jones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT1nqBlbM9I#t=1m45s


I'm still not sure what the correct ruling should have been. It's a tough, hairsplitting call, and it seems like the refs have called it differently on different occasions.

gg no re
09-21-2009, 09:23 AM
I think the correct ruling is that any and all obscure rules that are in the rulebook are to be applied to the detriment of the Raiders.

HOU-TEX
09-21-2009, 09:28 AM
I ain't going to lie. I was expecting the play to be over ruled. I did notice the knee down after watching the replay, but they never showed a view from the goal line so I wasn't sure.

I was wrong, my wife was right. Ugh!

kwayshauntay
09-21-2009, 09:34 AM
More vids:

VP of officiating, Mike Pereira on the Louis Murphy catch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc

PFTV on the Louis Murphy catch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzEIFWoFWXA


Based on this, I'm thinking that Jacoby's catch should have been ruled an incompletion. He was going to the ground as part of the process of making the catch, therefore by rule he has to maintain possession throughout the entire process, which I don't think he did since he lost possession at the end.

But, I'm not mad that the officials blew the call. Kinda makes it sweeter. :smiliedance:

Hardcore Texan
09-21-2009, 09:38 AM
He said on the local radio show that he realized after the fact that they were right... but it's still a silly rule as it is.

I don't think the fair catch rule is silly, once the fair catch signal is made the reciever has a right to catch the ball without interference because he is defenseless and his given up the right to advance the ball, he can sit back there and bumble it around all day trying to catch it but until it hits the ground, which is a failed catch, it's his ball, he never got the opportunity to finish the catch since it bounced off his chest and stayed in the air.

As far as the TD, it's either:

It was a reception before the end zone. Jacoby turned and stretched the ball over the goal line. His knee hit the 1 yard line the ball was over the goal line. Then his elbow hit the ground and he landed on top of the defender then rolled over the defender.

It was not a pass into the endzone. He had clear possession when the ball crossed the endzone and when his knee toughed the ground.

Or this:

This is exactly right. Jacoby caught the ball in the field of play, with possesion, the ball crossed the goal line.

The Raiders game, Murphy caught the ball in the endzone. When that happens you must maintain control of the ball basically until you hand it to the ref. You may not lose it even after your elbow hits, or whatever.

Remember the David Carr goal line play against the Jags when he just reached the ball over the goal line, then had it knocked loose? That is how Jacoby's play was called. Doesnt matter what happens after the ball crossed the goal line for 1/100th of a second.

Case closed. Close the book. The play was called correctly and is no way similar or related to the Raiders endzone catch.

Since the refs did not overturn it after the review they must have concluded that JJ caught and posessed the ball first in the field of play and then broke the plane of the end zone as a ball carrier after the reception and before the knee touch the ground, that's the only way it makes sense.

If he catches the ball in the endzone he has to maintain possesion of the ball through the process of going to the ground, can bobble it as long as it does not touch the ground. If the receiver goes out of bounds after getting two feet down (not debated in this case) he can not even bobble it or it move around on his body because at the point he would regain "possesion" he would be out of the field of play.

infantrycak
09-21-2009, 09:45 AM
If anything his knee was down at the one yard line...but I'm not complaining.

Where the knee touches is not what counted. What counts for a TD is whether the ball had broken the plane of the goal. On the open field it would be where the ball was at the moment the knee went down.

Based on this, I'm thinking that Jacoby's catch should have been ruled an incompletion. He was going to the ground as part of the process of making the catch, therefore by rule he has to maintain possession throughout the entire process, which I don't think he did since he lost possession at the end.

But, I'm not mad that the officials blew the call. Kinda makes it sweeter. :smiliedance:

Don't think they blew it at all. Folks are missing something here - he went to the ground and then arguably bobbled on the bounce, his second trip to the ground.

kwayshauntay
09-21-2009, 09:53 AM
Hmmm. I'm not sure. In the act of receiving the ball, he was going to the ground. He didn't catch the ball, stand up on two feet, then go to the ground. He was going down to the ground as part of the process of receiving it, so by the way the rule is written and interpreted, he has to maintain possession the entire way through, doesn't he?

Don't think they blew it at all. Folks are missing something here - he went to the ground and then arguably bobbled on the bounce, his second trip to the ground.

See, this is what makes this case so interesting. He lost the ball on his second roll, I agree. At what point is the catch considered finished? After one roll? Two rolls? Three rolls? Ten? LOL. I don't think the rules even address this. Maybe in this case the refs are on their own in no man's land, so they just have to make a judgment call.

Porky
09-21-2009, 09:53 AM
My first thought was an incomplete pass, but as I looked at it again I saw that the completion took place in the field of play and he seemed to cross the plane of the goaline before he was initially down. Anything that happens after that is null and void and doesn't matter. The instant that ball hits the plane of the goalline, it's a TD and the play is dead. If the catch had been made in the end zone, it's an easy call - it's an incompletion. It was completed and ruled a TD because he caught the ball in the field of play and advanced to the end zone.

I personally am not wild about the rule as written though. The rules for a completed catch should be the same whether in the field of play or in the end zone. Having different criteria is silly to me.

Hardcore Texan
09-21-2009, 09:54 AM
Where the knee touches is not what counted. What counts for a TD is whether the ball had broken the plane of the goal. On the open field it would be where the ball was at the moment the knee went down.



Don't think they blew it at all. Folks are missing something here - he went to the ground and then arguably bobbled on the bounce, his second trip to the ground.

IMO that would not matter, you have to display posession of the ball throughout if it was caught in the endzone and I don't think this is the case, I believe he caught and possesed the ball in the field of play and then broke the plane as a ball carrier, posession had be established the reception part was over. That's just my interpretation of the rules as I remember them. :)

Hardcore Texan
09-21-2009, 09:56 AM
Hmmm. I'm not sure. In the act of receiving the ball, he was going to the ground. He didn't catch the ball, stand up on two feet, then go to the ground. He was going down to the ground as part of the process of receiving it, so by the way the rule is written and interpreted, he has to maintain possession the entire way through, doesn't he?



See, this is what makes this case so interesting. He lost the ball on his second roll, I agree. At what point is the catch considered finished? After one roll? Two rolls? Three rolls? Ten? LOL. I don't think the rules even address this. Maybe in this case the refs are on their own in no man's land, so they just have to make a judgment call.

He has to display possesion and make a "football move". Kind of subjective.

hookinreds
09-21-2009, 10:02 AM
I donít want start a new thread because itís basically about the same play. Iíd like to know who made the call (not that it makes a lot of difference) to go right back to JJ after he dropped that comebacker on the play before. You could easily see that JJ was set to make a cut as soon as he made the catch, but forgot to hang around and catch the ball first. I turned to my Bronco buddy and those others at Pluckers (after cussing JJ and letting him know thatís why he doesnít start) and said the smart thing to do would be to come right back to JJ in the end zoneÖand they did! I just wonder if it was #8 or Shannyís call on that one, but definitely the one that this armchair QB would have made in that situation, and just glad that someone on the team made it too.

kwayshauntay
09-21-2009, 10:03 AM
IMO that would not matter, you have to display posession of the ball throughout if it was caught in the endzone, I believe he caught and possesed the ball in the field of play and then broke the plane as a ball carrier, posession had be established the reception part was over. That's just my interpretation of the rules as I remember them. :)

But is that true? Watch the vid again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT1nqBlbM9I#t=1m45s

He never establishes possession in the field of play IMO. To do that, he has to have two feet in bounds or one knee or one arm or whatever. Instead, he caught the ball while going to the ground. He did not catch the ball while standing up.

I think the gray area is that he lost the ball on kind of his second trip to the ground. Where is the line drawn?

Tricky tricky call this is. I wanna see what Pereira says about this.

GP
09-21-2009, 10:03 AM
My first thought was an incomplete pass, but as I looked at it again I saw that the completion took place in the field of play and he seemed to cross the plane of the goaline before he was initially down. Anything that happens after that is null and void and doesn't matter. The instant that ball hits the plane of the goalline, it's a TD and the play is dead. If the catch had been made in the end zone, it's an easy call - it's an incompletion. It was completed and ruled a TD because he caught the ball in the field of play and advanced to the end zone.

I personally am not wild about the rule as written though. The rules for a completed catch should be the same whether in the field of play or in the end zone. Having different criteria is silly to me.

Good summary, Porky. You've detailed it pretty well.

Jacoby caught the ball and knee was touching down as the ball extended over the goal line, essentially making that very instant a "concrete" solid TD.

Having two sets of criteria is, as you pointed out, very silly.

Yankee_In_TX
09-21-2009, 10:04 AM
I ain't going to lie. I was expecting the play to be over ruled. I did notice the knee down after watching the replay, but they never showed a view from the goal line so I wasn't sure.

I was wrong, my wife was right. Ugh!

So did I - I kept yelling at my wife - the stupid Raider's rule!!

HOU-TEX
09-21-2009, 10:06 AM
I have a feeling we might be getting an explanation by Mike Pereira on NFLTA on this call as well as the punt miscue. It isn't very surprising JJ was involved in both. I'm happy they both went JJ's way though. He had a decent game.

Yankee_In_TX
09-21-2009, 10:10 AM
I have a feeling we might be getting an explanation by Mike Pereira on NFLTA on this call as well as the punt miscue. It isn't very surprising JJ was involved in both. I'm happy they both went JJ's way though. He had a decent game.

Crap - I need to log in and set te DVR, thanks! I guessed we'd be on there twice :)

Mailman
09-21-2009, 10:24 AM
The goal line is irrelevant and a non-factor in the interpretation of the "going-to-the-ground" rule. The rule states that "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete."

Hardcore Texan
09-21-2009, 10:36 AM
The goal line is irrelevant and a non-factor in the interpretation of the "going-to-the-ground" rule. The rule states that "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete."

I agree with with you, my assertion is that the reception part was over, he became a ball carrier because he makes a football move after displaying posession of the ball.

It's number 3 on here (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-countdowns/09000d5d812c990e/Week-2-Top-5-catches)

To me in those replays it looks pretty clear what the refs called and why the didn't overturn it, he catches the ball and takes two steps and then is tackled as he carries the ball in the endzone, he displayed posession of the ball before crossing the goal line, it's either that or they have to rule it incomplete.

Double Barrel
09-21-2009, 10:43 AM
Finally we see some of these calls going our way instead of against us. Very nice to see. :thumbup

kwayshauntay
09-24-2009, 05:14 PM
Mike Pereira rules that Jacoby Jones' TD was in fact ruled correctly!

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d812dd884/Official-Review-Week-2-bonus-coverage

His reasoning is that Jacoby maintained control of the ball when he initially contacted the ground the first time, before being rolled over and flung by Finnegan. It doesn't matter that he lost the ball after contacting the ground for the second time, after being flung by Finnegan, since he had already demonstrated control of the ball upon his first contact with the ground. Therefore, it is a catch!

It's legit!
:redtowel:

eriadoc
09-24-2009, 05:30 PM
Mike Pereira rules that Jacoby Jones' TD was in fact ruled correctly!

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d812dd884/Official-Review-Week-2-bonus-coverage

His reasoning is that Jacoby maintained control of the ball when he initially contacted the ground the first time, before being rolled over and flung by Finnegan. It doesn't matter that he lost the ball after contacting the ground for the second time, after being flung by Finnegan, since he had already demonstrated control of the ball upon his first contact with the ground. Therefore, it is a catch!

It's legit!
:redtowel:

By their own convoluted rules, it's a legit catch, and was called correctly. As Mike Pereira alluded to, however, those rules are totally screwed up when your average fan cannot figure out what the hell is and isn't a catch.

ObsiWan
09-24-2009, 05:38 PM
I used to think once you crossed into the endzone with possession of the ball, it's a score and the play is over at that instant.

...but now I'm not so sure.

Mailman
09-24-2009, 05:40 PM
I used to think once you crossed into the endzone with possession of the ball, it's a score and the play is over at that instant.

...but now I'm not so sure.

That's true as long as the player isn't crossing the goal line via a pass completion.

infantrycak
09-24-2009, 05:47 PM
I used to think once you crossed into the endzone with possession of the ball, it's a score and the play is over at that instant.

...but now I'm not so sure.

That's true as long as the player isn't crossing the goal line via a pass completion.

No that is the general rule. The exception here is if the reception is made while the player is going to the ground. Then an extra requirement is tacked on (anywhere on the field) of maintaining possession through contact with the ground. Receive the ball while upright, make a football move, extend the ball over the plane of the goal and then have it knocked out of your hand and it is a TD - the possession was complete upon making a football move. If you are going to the ground (where typically you are not going to make a football move) you must maintain control through the contact with the ground to establish possession.

Second Honeymoon
09-24-2009, 05:49 PM
first off, its a bad rule.

but Jones was the right call because he made the 'football move' of rolling on the field with possession before he lost possession of the football. His knee was down and then he rolled further into the endzone which is where the 'football move' comes into play.

they should have never changed it especially since they already nerfed the offense by allowing players to be pushed out of bounds before they get 2 feet down. 2 years ago that was not the case. If the ruling was that you were forced out of bounds, it was considered a catch even if you didn't get 2 feet down. The league felt it was too much of a judgement call and the refs weren't very consistent...plus it was non-reviewable if I remember correctly.

anyway, scoreboard. it was a touchdown. period.

Thorn
09-24-2009, 05:53 PM
All these damn NFL rules are starting to sound as convoluted as the US tax code.

Malloy
09-24-2009, 06:03 PM
All these damn NFL rules are starting to sound as convoluted as the US tax code.

I'm pouring down beer to counter all those silly rules, join in! :)

BrandonLwowski
09-24-2009, 06:06 PM
The refs made a good call. Iím not saying this because Iím a Texan fan Iím saying cause i watched it several times and people seem to miss the most obvious reason. When jaboby jumps and catches the ball he has possession but the question is does he have it when he hits the ground. If you watch it again you will notice he hits the ground twice. when he lands and hits the ground the first time he has possession and its a touchdown right there. but when he bounces off the ground and lands again is where he loses possession but by that time it is already a catch and a touchdown.