The catch ruled incomplete???

[18IsTheMan]

Y'all gotta let this go. We won the game. The play didn't matter. Time to move on. Damn, someone reading this who hasn't seen the score would think we lost the game over this call.

The discussion is not about the outcome of the game. Rather it's about the illogicalness of the rule.

The rule, particularly for catches in the end zone, simply doesn't make sense.

I think they go overboard in the application of the rule overall, but the rule could easily be amended to add an exception for catches in the endzone that if a player has secure possession of the ball with a foot down in-bounds, the play is dead and the result is a TD. As they are applying it, it's an excessively high bar.

 

[bayrooster]

Y'all gotta let this go. We won the game. The play didn't matter. Time to move on. Damn, someone reading this who hasn't seen the score would think we lost the game over this call.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

The discussion is not about the outcome of the game. Rather it's about the illogicalness of the rule.

The rule, particularly for catches in the end zone, simply doesn't make sense.

I think they go overboard in the application of the rule overall, but the rule could easily be amended to add an exception for catches in the endzone that if a player has secure possession of the ball with a foot down in-bounds, the play is dead and the result is a TD. As they are applying it, it's an excessively high bar.

Calling the rules committee illogical is being kind!

 

[LonesomeRooster]

That's what I'm talking about - makes no sense.
Once the ball is controlled with one foot down in the endzone it should be play dead - TD, regardless of what happens after that.
Rules Committee really overthinking this thing!

IMHO, these kinds of rules are what lead to bad calls. Refs have too much thinking to do.

 

[Forkcock]

IMHO, these kinds of rules are what lead to bad calls. Refs have too much thinking to do.

Yep, they make it very difficult for officials to make the right call. You catch it and get two feet down, it should count.

 

[18IsTheMan]

IMHO, these kinds of rules are what lead to bad calls. Refs have too much thinking to do.

Yep, they make it very difficult for officials to make the right call. You catch it and get two feet down, it should count.

If you have to slow it down to almost frame-by-frame speed to decide that it's not a catch....it's a catch.

 

[LonesomeRooster]

If you have to slow it down to almost frame-by-frame speed to decide that it's not a catch....it's a catch.

Agree. One way around this would be to limit reviews to 20-30 seconds. If you can't decide in that time the ruling on the field stands.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Agree. One way around this would be to limit reviews to 20-30 seconds. If you can't decide in that time the ruling on the field stands.

I frankly think this should go for all reviews, but I think 30 seconds is overly generous. One slow motion review for 20 seconds should be more than enough. If it takes longer than that, it's too close to call and the call on field stands.

I see reviews where it is immediately obvious from the very first replay angle what the correct call is, but they'll take 2-3 minutes for the review.

But I'm anti-instant replay.

 

[bayrooster]

Yep, they make it very difficult for officials to make the right call. You catch it and get two feet down, it should count.

If you don't have control of the ball at any point while in bounds, it's debatable.

 

[LonesomeRooster]

I rewatched the game the other night. There were a couple of throws to the VT WR (Green) that were ruled incomplete as he was going out of bounds because the catch didn't survive the ground. At least the refs were consistent. But I still think the rule should be changed.