Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Sports

Cuthbert Allgood

(5,331 posts)

14. This ruling is consistent with the Thielen ruling last week.

Reply to aaaaaa5a (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 09:56 PM

Dec 2017

When you are going to the ground in the process of catching a ball, you have to have position of the ball all the way through getting up again. He did not. He bobbled it when it hit the ground.

I think it's a bullshit rule, but that ruling was correct with the current rule and consistent with the Vikings game last week (and that ruling would have changed the outcome of the game, too).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I have seen bang bang plays ruled fumbles (because of "football moves") [View all] JonLP24 Dec 2017 OP

Ridiculous call based on a ridiculous rule. aaaaaa5a Dec 2017 #1

It's turning football into a game that is dependent on micro movement. Why even have human referees? Cattledog Dec 2017 #4

They're not lucky. The league always rules for the fucking Patriots going back to the tuck... brush Dec 2017 #11

Yes they sure do Sailor65x1 Dec 2017 #22

Just keep in mind that the Steelers got a break early in the game on their first TD. ExciteBike66 Dec 2017 #27

This ruling is consistent with the Thielen ruling last week. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2017 #14

Megatrons was incomplete. So was this. Roland99 Dec 2017 #2

You can say what you like about the rule flotsam Dec 2017 #3

I thought it was a complete pass, but not a TD True Dough Dec 2017 #5

He wasn't down because there was no contact. nt Ohio Dem Dec 2017 #8

In that case True Dough Dec 2017 #9

It would have been if he'd maintained control. Ohio Dem Dec 2017 #10

I thought he had control while breaking the plane True Dough Dec 2017 #12

It's not about breaking the plane when you are in the process of catching the ball. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2017 #15

Then I don't like the rule! True Dough Dec 2017 #21

It would have been a completed pass and the ball spotted on the one yard line... Brother Buzz Dec 2017 #13

In this play (going down in the process of a catch) it isn't about breaking the plane. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2017 #16

Rules, schmules Brother Buzz Dec 2017 #17

Yeah, but running backs are different. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2017 #18

He wasn't touched. His knee was down but no one JonLP24 Dec 2017 #23

Bay Area had the 49ers/Titans. But it was a hell of a game too. Auggie Dec 2017 #6

Us Pats fans got lucky in that CBS switched to that game right after the Steelers game. ExciteBike66 Dec 2017 #28

He's looking very good in Kyle Shanahan's system Auggie Dec 2017 #32

It took so long to get a ruling because Kraft called Trump who called Goodell. Cattledog Dec 2017 #7

I don't ever want to hear another Boston fan ever complain about the Yankees Yavin4 Dec 2017 #19

They made the right call based on the rule...but the rule blows Docreed2003 Dec 2017 #20

Complete history of the NFL's dumb catch rule confusing people JonLP24 Dec 2017 #24

I Voted Incomplete, But. . . ProfessorGAC Dec 2017 #25

I think it came down to a judgment call on what is a "football move" ExciteBike66 Dec 2017 #26

I don't believe "football move" is in the rule anymore. They clarified that. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2017 #30

They removed that phrase, but the rule still takes into account whether he transitioned from a ExciteBike66 Dec 2017 #31

I agree. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2017 #33

the problem is the rule requires control to be demonstrated *after* both feet hit the ground. unblock Dec 2017 #29

Good call. Iggo Dec 2017 #34