PDA

View Full Version : Walter touchdown


Yankee_In_TX
11-14-2010, 03:34 PM
Ok, color me confused - so the Calvin Johnson call was wrong, Walter got a TD and I have no idea exactly what the rule is, eh?

texanhead08
11-14-2010, 03:46 PM
Don't feel bad the refs don't know the rule and based on this and Foster's td last week the league doesn't either.

TexanSam
11-14-2010, 03:47 PM
I think the ref called it a TD just so he wouldn't get another call from the NFL telling him he screwed up again.

texanhead08
11-14-2010, 03:49 PM
That's why the fans have such a huge problem with officiating. Its all over the place. There will be one play ruled a no catch and then a similar play will be ruled a catch. Noone knows what the **** the rule is or how to enforce or explain it.

El Tejano
11-14-2010, 03:56 PM
It was clear that he caught it, hit the ground, slid a few inches, and when he brought it up to show the ref, the defender's leg knocked it out.

Yankee_In_TX
11-14-2010, 03:58 PM
It was clear that he caught it, hit the ground, slid a few inches, and when he brought it up to show the ref, the defender's leg knocked it out.

No, I get what they called - I have seen other plays where a player rolls on the ground and drops it and no TD - some things you do while on the ground are 'football moves' and others aren't?!

Speedy
11-14-2010, 09:45 PM
Who the hell is Walter? Is that a waiver claim?

Yankee_In_TX
11-14-2010, 09:57 PM
Who the hell is Walter? Is that a waiver claim?

LMAO. But, I don't blame him, with Dre hurt, 81 out, JJ dropping balls, Walter's not a #1. He's only effective when everyone else garners attentions.

dream_team
11-14-2010, 11:04 PM
I think the key detail here was that the ground didn't cause the ball to pop out.

In Calvin & Arian's play, the ground caused the ball to pop out. In Walter's case, it was another player the jarred the ball out.

That's the only distinction I can think of that would make sense.

Norg
11-14-2010, 11:39 PM
I knew K Dubs would step it up this week he was balling out

i even seen a David anderson sighting

Dutchrudder
11-15-2010, 12:40 AM
It was ruled a TD because it made the game more interesting. It's not like we were going up 27 to 15 against an annual playoff team with national recognition... That wouldn't make for good TV.

Hardcore Texan
11-15-2010, 08:27 AM
He made a second move after the act of completing the catch. It's very obvious in the replay. The "second move" is the breaking point in the rule.

Blake
11-15-2010, 08:28 AM
Ok, color me confused - so the Calvin Johnson call was wrong, Walter got a TD and I have no idea exactly what the rule is, eh?

Dont use the ball to break your fall apparently is the common theme here.

b0ng
11-15-2010, 08:33 AM
Dont use the ball to break your fall apparently is the common theme here.

More like NFL officiating is on the shoddy side.

Ole Miss Texan
11-15-2010, 08:35 AM
The biggest thing for me is that Walter had control and slid on his back with the ball. That's different to me than Calvin Johnson's catch when the ball actually touched the ground and came loose. In either case, and with Foster's, I think they were all TD's and the NFL rules just confuse me.

Walter and Foster's TDs were clear TDs for me. I would have ruled Foster's TD a fumble before I ruled it incomplete because I thought he had possession. That would have been moot since he crossed the plane of the goal with possession so it was a TD. Calvin obviously had possession to me... whatever i'm getting upset now.

infantrycak
11-15-2010, 09:21 AM
It was clear that he caught it, hit the ground, slid a few inches, and when he brought it up to show the ref, the defender's leg knocked it out.

Nailed it. This is nothing like the CJ or Foster situations. Walter was in the process of demonstrating he had possession when the ball was knocked out by the opposing player. He'd already had maintained possession through contact with the ground.

HOU-TEX
11-15-2010, 09:24 AM
Anybody notice how pissed Walter got? Needless to say, he was expressing how he felt to the ref. lol

Yankee_In_TX
11-18-2010, 11:33 AM
He made a second move after the act of completing the catch. It's very obvious in the replay. The "second move" is the breaking point in the rule.

The NFL (I didn't see it, but I think it was the VP of officiating on NFLN - they talked about it on 610) said the call was INCORRECT because holding the ball up was NOT a second act and that because he slid for a long time it was a complete pass.

WTF?

infantrycak
11-18-2010, 12:07 PM
The NFL (I didn't see it, but I think it was the VP of officiating on NFLN - they talked about it on 610) said the call was INCORRECT because holding the ball up was NOT a second act and that because he slid for a long time it was a complete pass.

WTF?

There is no second act in the rule as written. It has been an unofficial standard for the officials during Pereira's tenure and even before. The new guy doesn't like the terminology because it isn't in the rule. The rule technically requires possession through contact with the ground. When is sufficient is anyone's guess but a second act like lifting the ball is a pretty good indication of possession.

JB
11-18-2010, 01:04 PM
There is no second act in the rule as written. It has been an unofficial standard for the officials during Pereira's tenure and even before. The new guy doesn't like the terminology because it isn't in the rule. The rule technically requires possession through contact with the ground. When is sufficient is anyone's guess but a second act like lifting the ball is a pretty good indication of possession.

This new guy seems to be a d***weed!

TheCD
11-18-2010, 01:50 PM
There is no second act in the rule as written. It has been an unofficial standard for the officials during Pereira's tenure and even before. The new guy doesn't like the terminology because it isn't in the rule. The rule technically requires possession through contact with the ground. When is sufficient is anyone's guess but a second act like lifting the ball is a pretty good indication of possession.

PFT had an article stating the the VP mentioned that overturning the call and having the play result in a TD was the correct move. However, it was the interpretation of the rule that was misused. Is that what you're getting at and I'm just totally off-kilter today?

infantrycak
11-18-2010, 01:55 PM
PFT had an article stating the the VP mentioned that overturning the call and having the play result in a TD was the correct move. However, it was the interpretation of the rule that was misused. Is that what you're getting at and I'm just totally off-kilter today?

That's right. The result was correct but the new VP didn't like the way the ref announced the call. Now personally I think even if a second act isn't in the rule if you accomplish one you have demonstrated possession which I think is the reasoning behind Pereira's policy - having some reasonably objective standard.

Big Lou
11-18-2010, 02:19 PM
I remember when AJ caught a TD in San Diego several yars ago, and he totally had the ball touch the ground and then the ground caused the fumble, it was such BS that he didn't get the score, so I've always remembered this rule.

So perhaps the WR should have to hold the ball for say 5 seconds after the catch and touch, the he'll have to run around the end zone while defenders try to knock the ball out of his hands.