PDA

View Full Version : Superbowl 2 Point Conversion


Big Lou
02-09-2010, 12:59 AM
Does anyone know how the rules work with receptions in the end zone. Since the Texans inception there have been two times when a Texans WR caught the ball with the ball over the plain of the goal line and came down and thus bieng clearly down with possesion, but the ball coming out well after bieng down, and both times it was ruled incomplete. Both times the Officials stated that the Reciever has to hold on to the ball even after bieng down.

So what I'm getting at is that the ball did come out after clear possesion during the Saints 2 point conversion on Sunday. I know for sure the rule is different for receptions in the end zone, but don't know the rule clearly.

Any help would be appreciated!!!

gg no re
02-09-2010, 01:13 AM
After the whole Louis Murphy deal, plus one of Jacoby's TDs against the Tacks, I don't know what the rules for a catch are anymore.

gtexan02
02-09-2010, 01:13 AM
If you catch it in the end zone, you must come all the way down.

If you catch it in the field of play, cross the goal line, then drop the ball, it counts as a TD

Blake
02-09-2010, 08:29 AM
If you catch it in the end zone, you must come all the way down.

If you catch it in the field of play, cross the goal line, then drop the ball, it counts as a TD

Pretty good explanation right here. Basically there are different rules for catching a pass while in the endzone, and catching a pass while in the field of play.

Just think about the David Carr QB Sneak for a TD against the Jags. He got the ball and drove it over the goal line for the TD, then it was knocked out of his hands. Didnt matter cause it already crossed the goal line for the TD.

Now in the SB, had the Saints receiver been in the endzone instead of the field of play when he caught the ball, he would have had to maintain possesion of the ball basically until the ref calls it a TD.

infantrycak
02-09-2010, 10:06 AM
If you catch it in the end zone, you must come all the way down.

If you catch it in the field of play, cross the goal line, then drop the ball, it counts as a TD

Not to be offensive but no. The distinction in rules comes on whether the player is going to the ground when the reception is made. If the player is going to the ground then they must maintain possession through contact with the ground. And to use the Texans example it was actually a completion because you only have to maintain possession through one contact with the ground. If the receiver is not going to the ground then they have to catch the ball and make a football move. Example to the contrary Shockey catching the ball fully in the endzone and getting the piss knocked out of him coughing up the ball before making a football move. The plane of the goal makes no difference to the rules for what is a reception.

Dread-Head
02-09-2010, 10:24 AM
Not to be offensive but no. The distinction in rules comes on whether the player is going to the ground when the reception is made. If the player is going to the ground then they must maintain possession through contact with the ground. And to use the Texans example it was actually a completion because you only have to maintain possession through one contact with the ground. If the receiver is not going to the ground then they have to catch the ball and make a football move. Example to the contrary Shockey catching the ball fully in the endzone and getting the piss knocked out of him coughing up the ball before making a football move. The plane of the goal makes no difference to the rules for what is a reception.

That's both stupid and inconsistent. You should have unquestioned control of the ball. They need to go back to the old rules. Catch the dang ball, get both FEET in the end zone or let the ball break the plane while you have CONTROL of the ball. The constant rule change make it harder and harder to be a fan of this game.

infantrycak
02-09-2010, 10:25 AM
That's both stupid and inconsistent. You should have unquestioned control of the ball. They need to go back to the old rules. Catch the dang ball, get both FEET in the end zone or let the ball break the plane while you have CONTROL of the ball. The constant rule change make it harder and harder to be a fan of this game.

I'm just explaining, not approving.

Dread-Head
02-09-2010, 12:09 PM
I'm just explaining, not approving.

No no! I wasn't getting on YOU, just the rule. I think the rule much like the current commissioner is stupid. I say they impeach him and replace him with Condileeza Rice.

infantrycak
02-09-2010, 12:46 PM
That's both stupid and inconsistent. You should have unquestioned control of the ball. They need to go back to the old rules. Catch the dang ball, get both FEET in the end zone or let the ball break the plane while you have CONTROL of the ball. The constant rule change make it harder and harder to be a fan of this game.

To follow up a little. Two pet peeves of mine. One the pylon rulings with someone like Vick or Bush sailing out of bounds and maybe a whisker on the ball crosses the pylon. Back in the day that wasn't good enough. Put the darn ball in the endzone. Flip side and to slightly argue your unquestioned control of the ball point - Lynn Swan might not be in the hall of fame with the way rules are now. They call incomplete for the ball moving ever so slightly while clutched to the body with two hands sometimes. Dude caught it, went to the ground with it and came up with it. I don't care if it moves a little on impact.