Gresham bobbles the ball, ends up controlling it and catching it while getting two feet in bounds and the ball crosses the goalline, but when hefalls to the ground TWO STEPS OUT OF BOUNDS he loses control of the ball and it's ruled no TD and incomplete. That's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
That call in the Bengals Ravens game is why the NFL pisses me off.
- Thread starter mstatefan88
- Start date
Also, I personally think that the NFL has the best officiating in any sport I follow, college or pro.
Sure they mess up some calls, but they get it right with a consistency that college football could desperately use.
Sure they mess up some calls, but they get it right with a consistency that college football could desperately use.
But the fact that rule is even in place is ridiculous, especially if the loss of possession happens out of bounds and you already got 2 feet in and the ball crossed the plane of the goal. I just don't understand how a rule can be made on a WR's possession of a ball outside the field of play.
of why they need to rethink the whole "player maintains possession" part of the rulebook. When a player is making an attempt to establish his feet in bounds or is trying to cross the goal line, then I completely agree that said player should be required to maintain possession while doing so. However, I don't understand the part about needing to do so while falling out of bounds. If a receiver catches the ball and gets two feet down in bounds, who the 17 cares whether the ball was bobbled after he falls to the ground out of bounds?
After he got 2 feet in and the ball crossed the goalline, he was getting tackled. He took two falling steps out of bounds while being tackled, and when he hit the ground 2 steps out of bounds, the ball knocked loose. It was ridiculous. There was no dispute that he got two feet in, or that he didn't have control of the ball while his 2 feet were in play. But it was called a no catch because the ball was knocked loose by the ground 2 steps out of bounds.