Slayton's catch in the 3rd quarter that was a non-catch

[boomstick 1,315]

11 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

But Slaton caught the pass. Isn't that him doing his job? If Slayton could have heald on when he hit the ground, we would have the first down (and I continue to argue that we should have been given the catch).

I guess I look at it like this. If Stidham had been more on time and more accurate with that throw, Slayton probably doesn't get hit immediately and cause him to lose the ball going to the ground. Slayton should still come down with that catch, IMO, but Stidham didn't exactly execute perfectly either, which is the point I was trying to make.

[rtftiger 40]

It is unbelievable that his turn (head, shoulders, torso) would not be considered a football move. It's an indefensible interpretation. If 100 referees agree, they are claiming some kind of special knowledge of physics. He clearly caught it. He clearly turned. I could even make the argument that the way he put his wrist/forearm down on the ground is actually a part of hi making a "football move." 

If the result of this play is the accepted interpretation of the rules, referees are deluding themselves.

[boomstick 1,315]

10 hours ago, Beaker said:

You're tight the ref farthest away called it.....weird.  

I am going to disagree:  his "football move" was coming down with possession and turning his body upfield.   That is the natural direction a football player will go with the ball.  The defender hit him, causing him to go down to the ground.

Catch ball?  Done. Land with possession? Done, (football move begins)  Turn body to go upfield?  Done. Gets hit now; leg tries to go forward?  Yes. Elbow hits ground causing ball to squirt free.....

If an old guy like me sees this, I must not understand the rule or the refs blew it.  I am thinking if maybe he ran 10-15 yards they may have called it a catch.  

I don't think he ever turns the ball upfield. He's attempting to turn as he's being hit. He never takes a step before contact. He barely gets his feet on the ground before contact. But IMO he never does anything to advance the ball past the point where his feet touch, which, according to the rule, means he has to maintain possession of the ball through contact with the ground.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

10 hours ago, mustache eagle said:

I've got another take on this play that had me irritated during the game.  If I recall, the ref on the far side is the one who called it incomplete.  IMO he could not have adequately seen the play.

first, he is running down the sideline as you can see his feet in the above clip.  Second, The play was 20 yards from him.  Third and most important, the tackler was between slayton and the ref.  I believe his line of sight was obstructed.

if I recall, the ref on top of the play didn't see it and looked to the far side for input.  Also if I recall, the ref coming from this side came in and called it a completion and was spotting the ball where slayton went down.

Assuming the play was called by the ref on the far side ... if he said he didn't have a clear view then I believe the near side ref would have called it complete and the replay would have been based on a completion which they may not have overturned.

what say y'all?

Sadly, I don't think it matters who called it.  If player comes down with the catch, goes to the turf right away, and the ball comes out, they are going to call incomplete pretty much every time. 

[boomstick 1,315]

4 minutes ago, rtftiger said:

It is unbelievable that his turn (head, shoulders, torso) would not be considered a football move. It's an indefensible interpretation. If 100 referees agree, they are claiming some kind of special knowledge of physics. He clearly caught it. He clearly turned. I could even make the argument that the way he put his wrist/forearm down on the ground is actually a part of hi making a "football move." 

If the result of this play is the accepted interpretation of the rules, referees are deluding themselves.

In point 3 of the rules posted on the last page, it says he has to maintain control long enough to enable him to perform a common move to the game, like advancing the ball or avoiding contact from a defender. Slayton couldn't do any of those things when he went to the ground. Therefore, in order for it to be a catch, he has to maintain possession through contact with the ground.

[Beaker 2,457]

Bottom line:  I am old or older and don't like how this has changed.   It's on me.   I am still ok with hitting the QB after he releases as long as it's only one step.  But I know that is a no-go.  Love me some Nick Fairly or Aundray Bruce.  

[WarTiger 3,896]

45 minutes ago, Beaker said:

Bottom line:  I am old or older and don't like how this has changed.   It's on me.   I am still ok with hitting the QB after he releases as long as it's only one step.  But I know that is a no-go.  Love me some Nick Fairly or Aundray Bruce.  

Actually its still legal to hit the QB after he releases the ball provided the contact isn't above the shoulders or at the knees and in a reasonable amount of time.  The 1 step thing is just made up and nowhere in the rule book and never has been.   What you probably will never hear on the TV is the white hat telling the defense the ball is gone.   Most white hats (if not all) are taught to verbally announce the ball is gone.  They will typically say, "The ball is gone, don't hit him".   If they hit him during that statement then its deemed ok.  If they hit him after the white hat finishes the statement its typically a penalty for roughing the passer.  White hats will say this on every pass thrown and in the same cadence every time. 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

3 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

Actually its still legal to hit the QB after he releases the ball provided the contact isn't above the shoulders or at the knees and in a reasonable amount of time.  The 1 step thing is just made up and nowhere in the rule book and never has been.   What you probably will never hear on the TV is the white hat telling the defense the ball is gone.   Most white hats (if not all) are taught to verbally announce the ball is gone.  They will typically say, "The ball is gone, don't hit him".   If they hit him during that statement then its deemed ok.  If they hit him after the white hat finishes the statement its typically a penalty for roughing the passer.  White hats will say this on every pass thrown and in the same cadence every time. 

That's great info.  Thanks WarTiger.

[mustache eagle 2,389]

I've never heard that before ... learned some new today

[rtftiger 40]

10 hours ago, boomstick said:

In point 3 of the rules posted on the last page, it says he has to maintain control long enough to enable him to perform a common move to the game, like advancing the ball or avoiding contact from a defender. Slayton couldn't do any of those things when he went to the ground. Therefore, in order for it to be a catch, he has to maintain possession through contact with the ground.

 

Yeah. I think it's obvious that the interpretation of common move is the difference here. I think a voluntary move to head upfield should constitute a common move. He was hit in progress of this movement. So, the movement was incomplete but voluntary and common. 

 

[C'viewTiger 242]

Just curious, if this was another team's WR with a game winning TD, would you guys feel the same way about it being called a reception?

[boomstick 1,315]

Just now, AU04ever said:

Just curious, if this was another team's WR with a game winning TD, would you guys feel the same way about it being called a reception?

Yes. 

[AU-24 3,063]

22 hours ago, rtftiger said:

It is unbelievable that his turn (head, shoulders, torso) would not be considered a football move. It's an indefensible interpretation. If 100 referees agree, they are claiming some kind of special knowledge of physics. He clearly caught it. He clearly turned. I could even make the argument that the way he put his wrist/forearm down on the ground is actually a part of hi making a "football move." 

If the result of this play is the accepted interpretation of the rules, referees are deluding themselves.

It was obviously a catch! Agree! As far as the rule states he must maintain control on/to or through the ground?  So a guy catches the ball takes four or five steps gets hit, goes out of bounds, hits the ground, then the ball pops out, are we then going to call that incomplete. This is a gross over interpretation of the rules; it was obviously a catch!

[rtftiger 40]

54 minutes ago, AU04ever said:

Just curious, if this was another team's WR with a game winning TD, would you guys feel the same way about it being called a reception?

Fair question, but yes.