PDA

View Full Version : Andre's bobble, INT....


jaayteetx
11-08-2010, 12:52 PM
I coulda swore I saw that ball bounce off the ground, but the replays were kinda inconclusive. Does anybody have pictures of that play or a better look at it to know for sure?

Blake
11-08-2010, 12:54 PM
Dont have a pic, but I am pretty sure it was a clean pick.

hot pickle
11-08-2010, 01:02 PM
clean pick... even AJ knew it. he didnt even try to complain about it

jaayteetx
11-08-2010, 01:04 PM
Ya, probably so but I sure would've liked to seen the other angle instead of the one with the defenders back to the camera.

Cjeremy635
11-08-2010, 01:08 PM
It looked clean to me. AJ should have had it and it was one of those lucky breaks that always seem to happen to the other team when they play us. Ofcourse, it helps when you're in the right position and you make the plays when you are given the opportunity......unlike our team. :bat:

El Tejano
11-08-2010, 01:09 PM
Why do other teams get that kind of play. We never get that to happen to us.

GuerillaBlack
11-08-2010, 01:12 PM
Why do other teams get that kind of play. We never get that to happen to us.

False. It's happened for the Texans this year. Not as often as we like, though.

Hervoyel
11-08-2010, 01:14 PM
Why do other teams get that kind of play. We never get that to happen to us.

We do. Our guy just doesn't come down with the ball. Remember Jacoby Jones in the endzone when the defensive back tipped the ball right to him? He looked like he was surprised the ball was there. That leads me to believe that he wouldn't have caught it even if it hadn't been tipped. Jacoby is backsliding badly this year.

It doesn't matter how fast he is if he can't catch the damn ball.

But we get those breaks, Our players just have their heads too far up their asses to see them coming and take advantage of them.

Mailman
11-08-2010, 01:33 PM
We do. Our guy just doesn't come down with the ball. Remember Jacoby Jones in the endzone when the defensive back tipped the ball right to him? He looked like he was surprised the ball was there. That leads me to believe that he wouldn't have caught it even if it hadn't been tipped. Jacoby is backsliding badly this year.

It doesn't matter how fast he is if he can't catch the damn ball.

But we get those breaks, Our players just have their heads too far up their asses to see them coming and take advantage of them.

And yet everyone here is mewling loudly about the playcalling in the fourth quarter.

Wake up, peeps! Arian Foster touched the ball over 30 times yesterday and the Texans were driving for the go-ahead score. Jacoby Jones blew an easy score on that deflection and it cost his team dearly. More importantly, Andre Johnson let a relatively easy reception slide through his mitts and bounce off his knee, up in the air, and into the diving arms of the defensive back who AJ had a clear angle on.

I'm sick of hearing this silliness about Foster not getting enough touches yesterday while everyone ignores a plain truth. We were in perfect position to win that game. The play call worked, our best player was wide freakin open in the middle of the field with one man to beat (and his momentum taking him out of position to make the tackle), and Andre flat out blew it.

If he makes that catch, he scores a TD.

To repeat: Arian Foster touched the ball 31 times for 197 yards and two TDs. We didn't lose because the coach supposedly got cute with his plays, we lost because OUR BEST PLAYER FAILED!!!!

Just admit it. The team was in position to take the lead with ninety seconds or so on the clock and the players failed to execute. I love AJ as much as the next guy, but he cannot get a pass here while everyone is busy piling on Gary Kubiak.

TimeKiller
11-08-2010, 01:41 PM
Yeah...we had a guy catch a couple bobbled passes....and what'd we do!?!???!!

Sat him down. For EUGENE ****ING WILSON

Dread-Head
11-08-2010, 01:46 PM
shhhhh....it happens. He can't be 100% all the time. He is only human. :tiphat:

Mailman
11-08-2010, 01:56 PM
shhhhh....it happens. He can't be 100% all the time. He is only human. :tiphat:

Sure, but he is probably the most important player on the team and he is expected to make that play. It was not a difficult play. He can be human on a dropped pass early in the game when there's plenty of game left; he needs to be a pro in that situation, and he almost always is. My point isn't to bash AJ but to simply point out the incongruity of the incessant, misplaced bitching about the offensive playcalling when that same playcalling got Arian Foster 31 touches and put the offense in scoring position at winning time.

I am not saying there's no room for criticism of the coaching performance yesterday (i.e. the hurry up on 4th down and some of the worst tackling I've ever seen), I'm asking for some perspective here. Some of you are still stuck on Monday Night Football. We got Arian involved and he killed it. Unfortunately, the receivers and secondary sucked goat balls.

thunderkyss
11-08-2010, 01:57 PM
That ball hit the Ground.

Mailman
11-08-2010, 02:01 PM
That ball hit the Ground.

It was a clean pick. Besides, the ball can hit the ground as long as it's controlled prior to and throughout the catch, which is exactly what Oliver did. His right hand was tightly gripped around the ball after he caught it.

Ckw
11-08-2010, 02:06 PM
Yeah...we had a guy catch a couple bobbled passes....and what'd we do!?!???!!

Sat him down. For EUGENE ****ING WILSON

^^^ This. Inexcusable! There is no reason Troy Nolan should not be on the field. Kubiak and his loyalties are what is going to get the guy canned. The fact that he continues to play some of these guys because "They practice well" or are good Christian soldier is extremely frustrating. This is football not the church Christmas play.

BullNation4Life
11-08-2010, 02:10 PM
IT WAS THE FREAKING CHARGERS!!! THE 3-5 freaking Chargers at that...

Should have NEEEEEVER came down to a last minute drive for the win. It should have been an ass stomping by the Texans from the word "GO" but once again, they let no named, undrafted players look like pro bowlers and beat their asses....


simply pathetic....

thunderkyss
11-08-2010, 02:11 PM
It was a clean pick. Besides, the ball can hit the ground as long as it's controlled prior to and throughout the catch, which is exactly what Oliver did. His right hand was tightly gripped around the ball after he caught it.

That was not a catch.

BullNation4Life
11-08-2010, 02:14 PM
Doesn't matter if was a clean pick or not, Andre Johnson needs to catch the damn ball, period...

GuerillaBlack
11-08-2010, 02:19 PM
Doesn't matter if was a clean pick or not, Andre Johnson needs to catch the damn ball, period...

Exactly. It was almost a sure TD. AJ knew it, too (he looked like he wanted to leave Reliant immediately after that). And Schaub knew it, also (with how pissed he looked, I'm sure he did).

No More 8-8's
11-08-2010, 02:19 PM
Has there any been outcry about the Arian Foster "Lost TD" in the second quarter? i know i was in the stands, but how is that not a touchdown????

HOU-TEX
11-08-2010, 02:21 PM
And yet everyone here is mewling loudly about the playcalling in the fourth quarter.

Wake up, peeps! Arian Foster touched the ball over 30 times yesterday and the Texans were driving for the go-ahead score. Jacoby Jones blew an easy score on that deflection and it cost his team dearly. More importantly, Andre Johnson let a relatively easy reception slide through his mitts and bounce off his knee, up in the air, and into the diving arms of the defensive back who AJ had a clear angle on.

I'm sick of hearing this silliness about Foster not getting enough touches yesterday while everyone ignores a plain truth. We were in perfect position to win that game. The play call worked, our best player was wide freakin open in the middle of the field with one man to beat (and his momentum taking him out of position to make the tackle), and Andre flat out blew it.

If he makes that catch, he scores a TD.

To repeat: Arian Foster touched the ball 31 times for 197 yards and two TDs. We didn't lose because the coach supposedly got cute with his plays, we lost because OUR BEST PLAYER FAILED!!!!

Just admit it. The team was in position to take the lead with ninety seconds or so on the clock and the players failed to execute. I love AJ as much as the next guy, but he cannot get a pass here while everyone is busy piling on Gary Kubiak.

AJ did have the drop, but the game should've been at hand already. We were 2 of 6 in the redzone. Sorry dude, but I refuse to place blame on AJ for 1 drop when I see the offense settling for FG's all day long.

GuerillaBlack
11-08-2010, 02:21 PM
Has there any been outcry about the Arian Foster "Lost TD" in the second quarter? i know i was in the stands, but how is that not a touchdown????

Oh, it was a TD. Foster caught the ball, had both of his hands on the ball, and then went into the endzone. A Charger was going at his ankles and Foster stumbled a little in the endzone, put the ball in his right hand (I guess to stop him from falling) and lost control of it. If that play at happened at the 50, it would have been a fumble and recovery by Foster. The new endzone "rules" (more like interpretations) are incredibly stupid.

Goatcheese
11-08-2010, 02:21 PM
IT WAS THE FREAKING CHARGERS!!! THE 3-5 freaking Chargers at that...

Should have NEEEEEVER came down to a last minute drive for the win. It should have been an ass stomping by the Texans from the word "GO" but once again, they let no named, undrafted players look like pro bowlers and beat their asses....


simply pathetic....

You mean the freaking #1 offense and defense Chargers? Those FREAKING CHARGERS?

AnthonyE
11-08-2010, 02:21 PM
That was not a catch.

Agree with this. The defender had his arms around the ball, not under it. Had a clean view of this from my seats. When the defender gets up to start running, you can see in the replay that he has to rotate his arm about 90 degrees just to tuck it. It's just a shame that there were 0 good angles of that pick.

Still, we wouldn't even have been in this situation if Andre, and the rest of our receiving corps for that matter, didn't have a major case of the Butterfingers sunday.

Mailman
11-08-2010, 02:27 PM
Oh, it was a TD. Foster caught the ball, had both of his hands on the ball, and then went into the endzone. A Charger was going at his ankles and Foster stumbled a little in the endzone, put the ball in his right hand (I guess to stop him from falling) and lost control of it. If that play at happened at the 50, it would have been a fumble and recovery by Foster. The new endzone "rules" (more like interpretations) are incredibly stupid.

You are confusing rules. There is no "endzone rule" with the process of completing a catch.

The rule may be stupid but it is the rule and every player knows it. I hate that it wasn't a TD but the call was correct. Foster should have put both hands on the ball.

Goatcheese
11-08-2010, 02:32 PM
You are confusing rules. There is no "endzone rule" with the process of completing a catch.

The rule may be stupid but it is the rule and every player knows it. I hate that it wasn't a TD but the call was correct. Foster should have put both hands on the ball.

The rule is that if you are going to the ground in the process of making the catch you must maintain possession all the way to the ground.

Foster was not going to the ground to make that catch. He caught it with two feet on the ground facing the line of scrimmage, fully upright and in control of his movement, and then made a 90+ degree turn and went into the endzone where he was hit from behind and knocked to the ground, losing the ball on impact.

The rule is stupid, but had nothing to do with this situation until the ref randomly misapplied it.

Mailman
11-08-2010, 02:51 PM
The rule is that if you are going to the ground in the process of making the catch you must maintain possession all the way to the ground.

Foster was not going to the ground to make that catch. He caught it with two feet on the ground facing the line of scrimmage, fully upright and in control of his movement, and then made a 90+ degree turn and went into the endzone where he was hit from behind and knocked to the ground, losing the ball on impact.

The rule is stupid, but had nothing to do with this situation until the ref randomly misapplied it.

I agree that the rule is stupid, but he Foster was definitely going to the ground in the act of making the catch. It doesn't matter that he had both feet on the ground, what matters is that he fell down into the end zone in the process of completing the catch.

GuerillaBlack
11-08-2010, 02:52 PM
I agree that the rule is stupid, but he Foster was definitely going to the ground in the act of making the catch. It doesn't matter that he had both feet on the ground, what matters is that he fell down into the end zone in the process of completing the catch.

But he caught it and went into the endzone standing up. He only started to fall when the defender was going at his ankles, after already being in the endzone. Foster didn't want to fall so he tried to keep himself up. Foster should have just fell and prayed that his ankles didn't get twisted or something (with how he was being tackled).

Mailman
11-08-2010, 02:55 PM
For educational purposes only, here is the rule:

Player Going to the Ground. 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. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

GuerillaBlack
11-08-2010, 02:59 PM
For educational purposes only, here is the rule:

Player Going to the Ground. 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. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Doesn't say anything about making "football" moves though. Foster definitely made some football moves well after the catch before the ball touched the ground (while Foster's hand was still on it).

Mailman
11-08-2010, 02:59 PM
But he caught it and went into the endzone standing up. He only started to fall when the defender was going at his ankles, after already being in the endzone. Foster didn't want to fall so he tried to keep himself up. Foster should have just fell and prayed that his ankles didn't get twisted or something (with how he was being tackled).

No, I've watched the replay numerous times and he was clearly falling forward into the end zone after he caught the pass. He may have been upright initially but he stumbled, that's why he fell. That action is considered "going to the ground" and will almost always cause that rule to come into play.

Mailman
11-08-2010, 03:00 PM
Doesn't say anything about making "football" moves though. Foster definitely made some football moves well after the catch before the ball touched the ground (while Foster's hand was still on it).

Football moves have nothing to do with it. Again, you are confusing different rules.

HJam72
11-08-2010, 03:25 PM
I hate rules! :foottap:

Blake
11-08-2010, 03:34 PM
Dont have a pic, but I am pretty sure it was a clean pick.

That ball hit the Ground.

I was mistaken. The first time I saw the pick, I though it was an INT. Then once it was challenged and we had that 1 shitty angle, I could have sworn that he trapped it with the ground. NOT a catch. I guess the refs didn't think they had enough evidence to overturn it.

jaayteetx
11-08-2010, 03:51 PM
I was mistaken. The first time I saw the pick, I though it was an INT. Then once it was challenged and we had that 1 shitty angle, I could have sworn that he trapped it with the ground. NOT a catch. I guess the refs didn't think they had enough evidence to overturn it.

that sure happens to us a lot, I know I'm biased and all, but can the multibillion dollar NFL get a few more damn cameras at these games so this kinda crap doesn't happen!?!?

Blake
11-08-2010, 03:52 PM
that sure happens to us a lot, I know I'm biased and all, but can the multibillion dollar NFL get a few more damn cameras at these games so this kinda crap doesn't happen!?!?

McNair opted to send back the 2nd camera so he could offer us the $5 12oz beer.

THANKS BOB!

drs23
11-08-2010, 04:31 PM
And yet everyone here is mewling loudly about the playcalling in the fourth quarter.

Wake up, peeps! Arian Foster touched the ball over 30 times yesterday and the Texans were driving for the go-ahead score. Jacoby Jones blew an easy score on that deflection and it cost his team dearly. More importantly, Andre Johnson let a relatively easy reception slide through his mitts and bounce off his knee, up in the air, and into the diving arms of the defensive back who AJ had a clear angle on.

I'm sick of hearing this silliness about Foster not getting enough touches yesterday while everyone ignores a plain truth. We were in perfect position to win that game. The play call worked, our best player was wide freakin open in the middle of the field with one man to beat (and his momentum taking him out of position to make the tackle), and Andre flat out blew it.

If he makes that catch, he scores a TD.

To repeat: Arian Foster touched the ball 31 times for 197 yards and two TDs. We didn't lose because the coach supposedly got cute with his plays, we lost because OUR BEST PLAYER FAILED!!!!

Just admit it. The team was in position to take the lead with ninety seconds or so on the clock and the players failed to execute. I love AJ as much as the next guy, but he cannot get a pass here while everyone is busy piling on Gary Kubiak.

:goodpost:

rep

texansdrummer
11-08-2010, 04:36 PM
No, I've watched the replay numerous times and he was clearly falling forward into the end zone after he caught the pass. He may have been upright initially but he stumbled, that's why he fell. That action is considered "going to the ground" and will almost always cause that rule to come into play.

The rule is stupid - if you run the ball in, it only has to break the plane, but if you happened to catch it before you enter, the rules are somehow different? How far from the endzone? What if the receiver catches the ball and spikes it in the endzone before the TD call? Shouldn't that be a "non-catch"?

thunderkyss
11-08-2010, 05:33 PM
Oh, it was a TD. Foster caught the ball, had both of his hands on the ball, and then went into the endzone. A Charger was going at his ankles and Foster stumbled a little in the endzone, put the ball in his right hand (I guess to stop him from falling) and lost control of it. If that play at happened at the 50, it would have been a fumble and recovery by Foster. The new endzone "rules" (more like interpretations) are incredibly stupid.

I agree, I think it was poor interpretation & application of the rule. He clearly had possession before the defender even touches him. Then, it's just as if he took a handoff from Schaub. When the ball crosses the plane, the play is over.

infantrycak
11-08-2010, 05:44 PM
I agree that the rule is stupid, but he Foster was definitely going to the ground in the act of making the catch. It doesn't matter that he had both feet on the ground, what matters is that he fell down into the end zone in the process of completing the catch.

The key is the definition of going to the ground. That doesn't apply to every reception. IMO, but for the defender making an in the endzone tackle, Foster receives that ball and runs it out without ever touching the ground. That should not have been ruled going to the ground. Going to the ground shouldn't mean catch the ball and then get tackled. It isn't the maintain possession through a tackle rule. WR makes a completion up in the air, comes straight down with two feet, then it is a completion then the only issue is whether it is a fumble if the ball comes out. On the field of play that's did a knee etc. go down before the fumble came out. In the endzone the last half is irrelevant as you can't make a player with an endzone reception fumble - it's a TD.

Off topic: want to see a bad ruling look at the Collie hit. He cleanly catches the ball, takes 2 arguably 3 steps and in the process brings the ball into an over and under wrap against his body and sees the hits coming and lowers his head and shoulders, gets hit and ball clearly comes out before he hits the ground. I guess to punish the Eagles and avoid it being called a fumble they ruled it an incomplete pass.

Norg
11-08-2010, 06:00 PM
We had a chance to win this game


THe JJ Not catching a tip ball

and Foster not completing the run in the endzone


Breaks are just not going out way im telling u its the astrodome Curse :mariopalm:

Rey
11-08-2010, 06:08 PM
I don' think the NFL should change the rule....

It's hard to explain, but IMO, the Foster catch and the Calvin Johnson catch were not really catches...

Had they not occured in the end zone they would have been credited with drops...

infantrycak
11-08-2010, 06:12 PM
Had they not occured in the end zone they would have been credited with drops...

The endzone is irrelevant to the drop issue. That's all about whether it was catchable and whether a reception was made.

thunderkyss
11-08-2010, 07:15 PM
I don' think the NFL should change the rule....

It's hard to explain, but IMO, the Foster catch and the Calvin Johnson catch were not really catches...

Had they not occured in the end zone they would have been credited with drops...

Calvin Johnson's thing was totally different.

If this were not in the endzone, the question would have been if the ground caused the fumble. Foster caught the ball well outside of the endzone. Both feet on the ground, clear possession. He then turns up field & crosses the plain.

It would be like a player extending the ball over the goal line, then getting it knocked out of his hands. After it crosses the goal line, it doesn't matter. play is over.

Mailman
11-08-2010, 08:15 PM
I don't know why you guys believe otherwise, but the end zone is totally irrelevant to the issue. Whether we're talking about Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster, both players were deemed to be going to the ground in the act of catching a pass and therefore must maintain possession after they've contacted the ground.

As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, the refs got the Foster call correct because he caught the ball with both feet on the ground, took one step with his left foot towards the end zone and as the ball crossed the plane of the goal line he got his right foot tripped up by the defender. That trip caused him to stumble forward and down to the ground, where he then used the ball to brace his fall instead of cradling it in his arms and falling down harmlessly.

thunderkyss
11-08-2010, 10:01 PM
I don't know why you guys believe otherwise, but the end zone is totally irrelevant to the issue. Whether we're talking about Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster, both players were deemed to be going to the ground in the act of catching a pass and therefore must maintain possession after they've contacted the ground.

As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, the refs got the Foster call correct because

he caught the ball with both feet on the ground,

took one step with his left foot towards the end zone and

as the ball crossed the plane of the goal line he got his right foot tripped up by the defender.

That trip caused him to stumble forward and down to the ground, where he then used the ball to brace his fall instead of cradling it in his arms and falling down harmlessly.

I agree with you, it was a catch way before the defender tripped him up.

The ball crossed the plane.

That is a touch down.

Rey
11-08-2010, 10:05 PM
The endzone is irrelevant to the drop issue. That's all about whether it was catchable and whether a reception was made.

The endzone is relevant. Listen to what Kubiak said about it. Said he thought that he caught the ball before going into the EZ, and he said the Refs disagreed with him.

You have to maintain possession just like you would in the open field.

Not sure what you thought I was saying there, but the second you cross the goal line with possession it's supposed to be a TD. If you don't complete the catch (which Arian did not do) then it's an incomplete pass.

Rey
11-08-2010, 10:07 PM
Calvin Johnson's thing was totally different.

If this were not in the endzone, the question would have been if the ground caused the fumble. Foster caught the ball well outside of the endzone. Both feet on the ground, clear possession. He then turns up field & crosses the plain.

It would be like a player extending the ball over the goal line, then getting it knocked out of his hands. After it crosses the goal line, it doesn't matter. play is over.

I saw it how the refs saw it. There was never a time where I felt like he had control/possession of the ball.

Maybe he initially made contact with the ball going into the EZ, but he did not complete the catch. Was not exactly like the Calvin Johnson non-catch, but I do think they are similar in that if these plays were not in the EZ they would obviously be ruled as incomplete.

Maintain possession of the ball and there won't be any problems.

I do not have any problem at all with the rule. That was not a TD by Foster, and that was not a TD by Johnson earlier in the year. I guess I just see it differently, but as soon as I saw Calvin make that catch earlier in the year, I was thinking to myself that it wasn't a catch. When I saw Foster's non TD I was hoping it wouldn't get reviewed because I didn't feel like he ever had possession of the ball.

Rey
11-08-2010, 10:18 PM
I don't know why you guys believe otherwise, but the end zone is totally irrelevant to the issue. Whether we're talking about Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster, both players were deemed to be going to the ground in the act of catching a pass and therefore must maintain possession after they've contacted the ground.

As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, the refs got the Foster call correct because he caught the ball with both feet on the ground, took one step with his left foot towards the end zone and as the ball crossed the plane of the goal line he got his right foot tripped up by the defender. That trip caused him to stumble forward and down to the ground, where he then used the ball to brace his fall instead of cradling it in his arms and falling down harmlessly.

No, the end zone is completely relevant. Not sure why you guys keep saying it isn't.

If you catch a ball in the endzone you have to maintain possession all the way through the catch.

If you catch a ball outside of the EZ but fall down into the EZ as you're making the catch, you have to maintain possession all the way to the ground. You
have to establish possession at some point before crossing the goal line.

If you catch a ball in the EZ and lose the ball as you fall to the ground, that is not a catch.

As long as you establish possession before you cross the goal line then it doesn't matter if you drop it as you go to the ground when you cross the chalk.

I agree with you that it was not a TD by Foster...But it was not a TD IMO, because he never established possession of the ball.

It will never be a TD in any circumstance if you don't establish possession either in the EZ or before crossing the goal line.

Mailman
11-09-2010, 12:34 AM
Rey, you are wrong and apparently have not read the rule as it is written in the rulebook. I posted it upthread.

Field position has no relevance at all if a receiver is deemed to be going to the ground in the process of catching the ball. End zone, twenty yard line, midfield....doesn't matter! It's all the same.

I will restate it for emphasis since you didn't catch it the first time:

"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."

infantrycak
11-09-2010, 10:25 AM
As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, the refs got the Foster call correct because he caught the ball with both feet on the ground, took one step with his left foot towards the end zone and as the ball crossed the plane of the goal line he got his right foot tripped up by the defender. That trip caused him to stumble forward and down to the ground, where he then used the ball to brace his fall instead of cradling it in his arms and falling down harmlessly.

You described it great and that makes it a not a going to the ground play. The point of going to the ground is whether you are doing so to make the catch. If you voluntarily leave your feet in order to have the ball touch your hands in a position which you cannot reasonably be expected to land on your feet once the ball touches your hands then going to the ground applies. If you are on your feet and make the catch then get tackled to the ground the rule does not apply or at least should not apply.

The endzone is relevant.

Not to whether it is a drop. It isn't even to the going to the ground rule. Mailman quoted that above. I think he misapplies it here as did the refs but the rule is not endzone dependent.

spurstexanstros
11-09-2010, 10:39 AM
Curse my predictive intuitions...I posed a question to some of the blue crew prior to the game. " AJ has made so many playes this year to win or tie games, and thats what you want the ball in your best players hands in the clutch. However if they throw to him and he doesnt make a play will you be pissed?" My answer then is the same now. No

The best player dropped the ball..and sometimes the ball bounces that way.

Norg
11-09-2010, 12:15 PM
I hate that rule if your running the ball all u have 2 do is make the ball cross the plane and then u can throw the ball to the wall for all they care

but if its a pass u have 2 do like 3 things to complete the pass

cuppacoffee
11-09-2010, 08:28 PM
This guy thinks Ariens catch was a TD

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/11/09/mike-pereira-arian-fosters-second-quarter-incompletion-was-tou/

:coffee:

Rey
11-09-2010, 08:37 PM
Rey, you are wrong and apparently have not read the rule as it is written in the rulebook. I posted it upthread.

Field position has no relevance at all if a receiver is deemed to be going to the ground in the process of catching the ball. End zone, twenty yard line, midfield....doesn't matter! It's all the same.

I will restate it for emphasis since you didn't catch it the first time:

"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."

No, Mailman...You are wrong.....

This is what Kubiak says about it:

Another great game from Arian Foster. TD got away when he set hand down. Arian said he wasnt clear on that rule. HAvent coaches told players about that?

They've seen the film. Thats what we teach them off of. I thought the play was the same play as the SB. Caught ball outside of EZ and reached over, TD. They didnt see it that way. They thought he caught it in the EZ so he has to maintain possession. Thought NO had same play in 2 pt conversion in SB.

You turn that into the league?

Oh yeah.

Did you notice...looked like Arian bobbled it some.

I thought he caught it. Everything I see, he caught it. He got great hands, big hands. Very comfortable catching it. It'll be interesting to see what their opinion is.

Whether or not he catches the ball in the EZ or on the One yard line matters a great deal.

Either way though he has to show possession at some point, which I don't think he ever did. Kubiak, on the other hand thinks that he caught the ball, had possession as he crossed the goal line. The drop at the end would be completely non relevant if that were the case.


Not sure how you aren't understanding this. If you catch the ball at the 1 yard line, have possession and in the same motion reach out across the goal line, that is a TD no matter if he loses it when he goes to the ground or not. Just like that play in this past SB which Kubiak pointed out above. If that play happens in the open field then it is probably incomplete.

If you catch a ball and lose it when you go to the ground in the regular field of play it's an incomplete pass.


The EZ matters a great deal, and it mattered this past Sunday. I disagree with Kubiak as to the 'reason' it wasn't called a TD, but either way...the result is the same. No TD.

Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying, but I thought I clearly outlined it in the post above. No matter the circumstance the receiver has to show that they have possession at some point before crossing the goal line. It doesn't matter if they don't complete the catch all the way to the ground...They just need to have possession...

Texan_Bill
11-09-2010, 08:43 PM
I don't know why you guys believe otherwise, but the end zone is totally irrelevant to the issue. Whether we're talking about Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster, both players were deemed to be going to the ground in the act of catching a pass and therefore must maintain possession after they've contacted the ground.

As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, the refs got the Foster call correct because he caught the ball with both feet on the ground, took one step with his left foot towards the end zone and as the ball crossed the plane of the goal line he got his right foot tripped up by the defender. That trip caused him to stumble forward and down to the ground, where he then used the ball to brace his fall instead of cradling it in his arms and falling down harmlessly.

You're spot on. As the rule is written today, both were incomplete.

That's why I disagree with TK about Calvin Johnson and Foster's being different. Same animals.

Rey
11-09-2010, 08:45 PM
You described it great and that makes it a not a going to the ground play. The point of going to the ground is whether you are doing so to make the catch. If you voluntarily leave your feet in order to have the ball touch your hands in a position which you cannot reasonably be expected to land on your feet once the ball touches your hands then going to the ground applies. If you are on your feet and make the catch then get tackled to the ground the rule does not apply or at least should not apply

But it does apply.

Regardless of how the receiver ends up on the ground in the process of a catch the going to the ground rule applies.

Rey
11-09-2010, 08:47 PM
I agree with you, it was a catch way before the defender tripped him up.

The ball crossed the plane.

That is a touch down.

That's exactly how Kubiak sees it.

I disagree with him though. I don't think Foster ever had possession.

I am willing to concede that maybe I had a bad angle on the play, but even after watching it on TV, it didn't look like he ever had possession of the ball.

JB
11-09-2010, 08:52 PM
No, Mailman...You are wrong.....

This is what Kubiak says about it:



Whether or not he catches the ball in the EZ or on the One yard line matters a great deal.

Either way though he has to show possession at some point, which I don't think he ever did. Kubiak, on the other hand thinks that he caught the ball, had possession as he crossed the goal line. The drop at the end would be completely non relevant if that were the case.


Not sure how you aren't understanding this. If you catch the ball at the 1 yard line, have possession and in the same motion reach out across the goal line, that is a TD no matter if he loses it when he goes to the ground or not. Just like that play in this past SB which Kubiak pointed out above.

If you catch a ball and lose it when you go to the ground in the regular field of play it's an incomplete pass.


The EZ matters a great deal, and it mattered this past Sunday. I disagree with Kubiak as to the 'reason' it wasn't called a TD, but either way...the result is the same. No TD.

Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying, but I thought I clearly outlined it in the post above. No matter the circumstance the receiver has to show that they have possession at some point before crossing the goal line. It doesn't matter if they don't complete the catch all the way to the ground...They just need to have possession...

I'll have to watch it again because I'm not sure if he was in the end zone or nor when he caught it, I didn't think so. But he definitely had possession and was in the end zone when he put the ball down.

Texan_Bill
11-09-2010, 09:08 PM
I'll have to watch it again because I'm not sure if he was in the end zone or nor when he caught it, I didn't think so. But he definitely had possession and was in the end zone when he put the ball down.

JB bobbles gameday tickets.

**********

By rule, as written he did not complete the reception irrespective of where the ball was.

Goatcheese
11-09-2010, 09:13 PM
This guy thinks Ariens catch was a TD

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/11/09/mike-pereira-arian-fosters-second-quarter-incompletion-was-tou/

:coffee:

Gah, that makes it hurt that much more.


Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

2. San Diego at Houston

THE SITUATION: Houston led 17-14 with 23 seconds left in the second quarter, with the ball third-and-3 at the San Diego 3-yard line.

THE PLAY: Texans quarterback Matt Schaub completed a 3-yard pass to running back Arian Foster for the touchdown. During a booth review, the replay assistant challenged that it was an incomplete pass, and the play was reversed. On fourth-and-3, the Texans were forced to settle for a field goal and a 20-14 lead.

MY TAKE: The league needs to go back to the drawing board to figure out what is a catch when you are going to the ground. This play was reversed to an incomplete pass and I thought it should have stayed a touchdown. This is an example of the confusion surrounding this area of the game.

To me, this was similar to the two-point conversion in the Super Bowl last season and not the Calvin Johnson play from Detroit's first game this season. Foster was on his way to the ground and reached out with the ball in his right hand to make sure that he had broken the plane. This is the “second act” that the league has referred to in the past.

If the receiver is going to the ground but reaches out with the ball in an attempt to gain more yardage, he is deemed to have completed the catch and the ruling then becomes either a touchdown — if the end zone is involved — or a catch and down-by-contact in the field of play provided he had been touched by an opponent. If not, it would be catch and fumble.

This is what happened last year in the Super Bowl when Lance Moore reached out to break the plane. This is not what happened in the Calvin Johnson play earlier this season when the ball hit the ground and came loose as part of the process of completing the catch.

In my opinion, the ruling of touchdown should not have been reversed and this call seemed to change the complexion of the game.

Rey
11-09-2010, 09:37 PM
I'll have to watch it again because I'm not sure if he was in the end zone or nor when he caught it, I didn't think so. But he definitely had possession and was in the end zone when he put the ball down.

Well, if he had possession prior to going into the EZ then I'd have to agree with the folks that are saying it should have been a TD.

I didn't think he had ever shown possession, but I could be completely wrong...Could have just been the angle that I saw it from...

Rey
11-09-2010, 09:40 PM
JB bobbles gameday tickets.

**********

By rule, as written he did not complete the reception irrespective of where the ball was.

That's how I saw it...I didn't think that he ever showed that he had possession of the ball...

But you don't have to fully "complete the reception" when crossing the plane of the EZ...you just have to show possession when you are crossing the goal line

JB
11-09-2010, 10:39 PM
That's how I saw it...I didn't think that he ever showed that he had possession of the ball...

But you don't have to fully "complete the reception" when crossing the plane of the EZ...you just have to show possession when you are crossing the goal line

If you watch the replay, he caught the ball and took a full step before leaned to the ground.

Texan_Bill
11-09-2010, 10:43 PM
That's how I saw it...I didn't think that he ever showed that he had possession of the ball...

But you don't have to fully "complete the reception" when crossing the plane of the EZ...you just have to show possession when you are crossing the goal line

If you watch the replay, he caught the ball and took a full step before leaned to the ground.

None of that matters as it relates to the NFL's rule with regards to "completion of a reception"...

*that said, I think the rule the way it's written is BS... Especially given the talent level and the superior play of today's current players!!!!!*

infantrycak
11-10-2010, 01:37 AM
But it does apply.

Regardless of how the receiver ends up on the ground in the process of a catch the going to the ground rule applies.

No it doesn't unless you ignore the whole point of "going to the ground." There is a gigantic IF in front of that. Only IF you are going to the ground when you make the initial contact/attempted reception do you have to maintain possession through the ground. Going to ground doesn't apply to every plat. A WR standing dead still catches the ball, for some mind numbing reason stands stock still for 2 seconds making no "football move" and is then hit and the ball comes out it is a reception and a fumble. It isn't a going to the ground incompletion.

And by the way, as pointed out above the immediate past head of officiating thinks you're wrong.

I don't think Foster ever had possession.

I am willing to concede that maybe I had a bad angle on the play, but even after watching it on TV, it didn't look like he ever had possession of the ball.

That's just ridiculous. He receives the ball, takes possession in two hands, is hit and then is even confident enough in his possession to extend the ball in one hand and it never moves until it hits the ground.