Yankee_In_TX
Dance Lindsay!
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?
Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!
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?!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.
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.Who the hell is Walter? Is that a waiver claim?
Dont use the ball to break your fall apparently is the common theme here.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?
More like NFL officiating is on the shoddy side.Dont use the ball to break your fall apparently is the common theme here.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
This new guy seems to be a d***weed!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?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.
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.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?