The single worst call I have ever seen.

[Charles_Main]

Detroit lost to the bears today 19 to 14. But actually they won according to most people who watched the replay.

The refs called what looks like a clear cut Touchdown back and reviewed it (inside 2 mins) and made some BS remark about the Process of catching the ball. Because the receiver bobbled the ball for a millisecond. The problem is he caught the ball and got both feet down in the end zone, and only then appeared to bobble for a second before falling to the ground with the ball again under his control.

Now how is that pass caught like that in the end zone not a TD.

Me senses so Bear fan refs in the mix.

 

[Paulie]

It doesn't matter that his feet were down. You have to have complete control of the football until you're downed.

Even the slightest amount of bobble, as you mentioned, is considered not having control.

 

[Mr. H.]

WTF? I turned off the TV right after the Loins scored. LOL

nya nya!

 

[Paulie]

Nevermind, I just watched the play. I spoke too soon.

He had possession and control all the way through.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap6Kn0dkbyY]YouTube - BYU vs Washington 2008 Controversial Last Seconds[/ame]

 

[Montrovant]

I don't think it was a bobble....I think the problem was he dropped the ball when he came down on it at the very end of the catch. Of course, that was after getting two feet down, a hand down, and his ass down with control, but they have the stupid 'maintain control throughout the process of the catch' rule. I thought it was a TD.

It certainly wasn't the worst call I've seen in the NFL, though. How about the playoff game between the Colts and Steelers a few years ago, when the Steelers picked off Manning near the end of the game, and after review it was overturned? That was certainly worse, and I think may have been the worst call I've seen.

 

[Toro]

No. Its not a bobble. Its because he has to keep holding onto the ball as the ball hits the ground. If the ball and been in his hand when he stood up, then its a TD. Because it leaves his hand as it hits the ground, its an incomplete pass. That's the rule, apparently.

I was watching the game when it happened. The commentators said afterwards that it was an incomplete pass.

Frankly, I think it's a inconsistent when that is not a TD but when the ball carrier is running the ball into the end zone, all it has to do is break the plane of the goal line and the play is over, even if he fumbles it a moment later. I think the argument for the incomplete pass is that he never had possession.

 

[Charles_Main]

Nevermind, I just watched the play. I spoke too soon.

He had possession and control all the way through.

Exactly

 

[Charles_Main]

No. Its not a bobble. Its because he has to keep holding onto the ball as the ball hits the ground. If the ball and been in his hand when he stood up, then its a TD. Because it leaves his hand as it hits the ground, its an incomplete pass. That's the rule, apparently.

I was watching the game when it happened. The commentators said afterwards that it was an incomplete pass.

Frankly, I think it's a inconsistent when that is not a TD but when the ball carrier is running the ball into the end zone, all it has to do is break the plane of the goal line and the play is over, even if he fumbles it a moment later. I think the argument for the incomplete pass is that he never had possession.

I do not know what game you watched. But on FOX the commentators called it a Terrible call, and a clear touchdown.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I saw that. It was a really shakey call. I would have called it for Detroit but then again, I'm not a ref. This call is pretty "rank" like that call that robbed the kid out of a no hitter in baseball earlier this year. It's a toss-up as to which was the worst call.

 

[Charles_Main]

I saw that. It was a really shakey call. I would have called it for Detroit but then again, I'm not a ref. This call is pretty "rank" like that call that robbed the kid out of a no hitter in baseball earlier this year. It's a toss-up as to which was the worst call.

Oh the no hitter one was Worse IMO. I meant the worst call I ever seen in an NFL game.

it really hurt because after years of Sucking the Lions were playing well. There defense was forcing turn overs and before our QB got hurt he was playing well. Despite losing him we still manage to throw a game winning TD only to have it taken away and lose because of a crap call.

I am sure this will be a terrible blow to what could have been a good start we needed desperately.

 

[Paulie]

No. Its not a bobble. Its because he has to keep holding onto the ball as the ball hits the ground. If the ball and been in his hand when he stood up, then its a TD. Because it leaves his hand as it hits the ground, its an incomplete pass. That's the rule, apparently.

I was watching the game when it happened. The commentators said afterwards that it was an incomplete pass.

Frankly, I think it's a inconsistent when that is not a TD but when the ball carrier is running the ball into the end zone, all it has to do is break the plane of the goal line and the play is over, even if he fumbles it a moment later. I think the argument for the incomplete pass is that he never had possession.

That was what I was thinking too, but I would think that an end zone play would be ruled differently because once both feet are down and he has control of the ball, the play should be considered dead.

I would think that once his ass hit the ground, that's the official end of the catch because he is considered downed at that point. Along the same lines as the ground can't cause a fumble when the ball carrier is in the process of being downed.

 

[saveliberty]

It doesn't matter that his feet were down. You have to have complete control of the football until you're downed.

Even the slightest amount of bobble, as you mentioned, is considered not having control.

Yet, you can break the plane of the goal on a corner and its a touchdown. His feet were down and the ball made contact with the ground. What happens after that makes on difference.

 

[topspin]

was a good call, he dropped it insteads of tucking it.

 

[saveliberty]

was a good call, he dropped it insteads of tucking it.

I did not see separation from the ball until after it hit the ground.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nevermind, I just watched the play. I spoke too soon.

He had possession and control all the way through.

No the convoluted rule is that until you are completely down you must have the ball. He used the ball to break his fall and it squirted out. It is a bad rule but the Refs followed the rule.

 

[topspin]

you have to come down and posses the ball, he did not.
I do like the old rule of possession in the end zone.

 

[saveliberty]

you have to come down and posses the ball, he did not.
I do like the old rule of possession in the end zone.

What I wonder is, have they changed the rule about the ball being caught and crossing the plane, but the ball carrier get goes out of bounds and drops the ball. Usually occurs in the front corners.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nah.

The worst call was me in a NLHE cash game.

Yoko on my right UTG raises 3BB, I have 2 black aces and pop it up 8BB, everyone folds, Yoko calls. I've played her before and she's a nit.

Flop comes A34 rainbow she checks I bet half the pot, she calls.

Turn 5, check check

River 8 (no flush possible) she half pots it and I tank (there's no way she raises PF with A2 or 67 suited or not) I shove putting her on pocket 8's

What else could she have except 22? I doubled her up and felt much shame.

 

[rightwinger]

No. Its not a bobble. Its because he has to keep holding onto the ball as the ball hits the ground. If the ball and been in his hand when he stood up, then its a TD. Because it leaves his hand as it hits the ground, its an incomplete pass. That's the rule, apparently.

I was watching the game when it happened. The commentators said afterwards that it was an incomplete pass.

Frankly, I think it's a inconsistent when that is not a TD but when the ball carrier is running the ball into the end zone, all it has to do is break the plane of the goal line and the play is over, even if he fumbles it a moment later. I think the argument for the incomplete pass is that he never had possession.

That is the way I understand the rule. I don't agree with it, but that is consistent with how it has been interpreted the last two seasons.
There is a continuation of the play as you hit the ground. The old, "ground can't cause a fumble" does not apply. You have to control the ball through the entire process, not just a part of it.