Superbowl XLIV: Indianapolis Colts vs. New Orleans Saints @ Sun Life Stadium

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Razor Shines

I don't get blaming Manning for this game. I thought he was just about as "on" as he's been throughout the playoffs. Some of the throws he made were incredible. He threw two passes to Dallas Clark on the run that were pinpoint passes. The TD pass he threw was a great pass. He should have had two TDs, but Wayne dropped the ball at the end. It may not have mattered because they still needed the onside kick. The pick-6 was a mis-communication between Wayne and Manning, but that's going to happen a couple times a game when you don't huddle and use hand signals for everything. You just have to hope those balls fall incomplete.

It is kind of a polarizing topic. Manning made the biggest mistake of the game. The slant route was predictable and the Saints knew it was coming, that is on Manning. I think the Saints did a heck of a job playing keep away but I just still can't get past the pick 6.

[Razor Shines]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

It is kind of a polarizing topic. Manning made the biggest mistake of the game. The slant route was predictable and the Saints knew it was coming, that is on Manning. I think the Saints did a heck of a job playing keep away but I just still can't get past the pick 6.

Wayne didn't run a slant route, that's why it got picked. Manning threw the ball as if it was a slant, but it looked like Wayne was running an In route, I can't be sure though. He was juking the CB while Manning was throwing the ball, again I can't be sure what Wayne was running but it was not a slant.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

The difference is in the continuation. Once the receiver controls the ball and breaks the plane, play over, conversion successful. Stop the tape, nothing else that happens from that nano-second onward is relevant to the play.

Your problem is that you want to keep watching -- "See," you say, "the ball came free at the end there. No catch!" Once the ball breaks the plane, play over. It isn't that way on the 50 yard line or anywhere else on the field. On the goal line, the play is over before Moore loses the ball.

The issue here is did he ever establish possession of the ball. Once that is established your point is valid. The review was not over whether he broke the plane of the end zone; it was whether he had possession.

Given your example above, you treat the goal line like the sideline. You can lose possession as you hit the ground out of bounds and it can be ruled incomplete even though you had it for an instant with both feet in bounds. They changed this recently where you have to maintain possession all the way to the ground.

Once again my point is this, to which no one has given evidence to the contrary: The rules are not different in the end zone.

I'm glad a bunch of you are not officiating games...

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Razor Shines

Wayne didn't run a slant route, that's why it got picked. Manning threw the ball as if it was a slant, but it looked like Wayne was running an In route, I can't be sure though. He was juking the CB while Manning was throwing the ball, again I can't be sure what Wayne was running but it was not a slant.

I agree with your assessment.

I also think Wayne wasn't 100% healthy. I think he should have been able to keep the CB from returning it for a TD

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Sea Ray I get your point, but I think had that ball been caught on the 40 yard line it would have been ruled incomplete. I think the refs would have interpreted the rule different had it not happened at the goal line.

If it would have been ruled incomplete at the 40 then it should have been ruled incomplete at the goal line if the officials were following the rulebook. If they'd ruled it a fumble at the 40 then it should be ruled a TD at the goal line. That's the only way it could be ruled differently

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Once again my point is this, to which no one has given evidence to the contrary: The rules are not different in the end zone.

I'm glad a bunch of you are not officiating games...

Snide commentary aside, as I watched the play, he had possession, broke the plane, and lost possession again.

Conversion good.

The rules are different because everything after he breaks the plane is a moot point, wheras on the rest of the field the official can continue watching the film to see what happens next as part of his deterimination of "possession"

We're never going to agree on this, so I see no point continuing the discussion further.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Snide commentary aside, as I watched the play, he had possession, broke the plane, and lost possession again.

Conversion good.

The rules are different because everything after he breaks the plane is a moot point, wheras on the rest of the field the official can continue watching the film to see what happens next as part of his deterimination of "possession"

We're never going to agree on this, so I see no point continuing the discussion further.

A pretty good case could be made that the officials are considering too much of what happens next(or too much longer?) in deciding possession, but it's clear that they do, and the NFL seems to be okay with that the way it is. What probably deserves more attention about that play is that they actually had the right camera angles to get visual evidence that the ball crossed the plane, while they often don't. They need to have that all the time.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

The rules are different because everything after he breaks the plane is a moot point, wheras on the rest of the field the official can continue watching the film to see what happens next as part of his deterimination of "possession"

This is where you're wrong and I've shown you the rulebook and it states the rules of possession are the same. If you'd like to show me a section of the rulebook that says otherwise I'll cede your point. This isn't a matter of us agreeing or debating. It's a matter of what the rules say. All further discussion should include quotes from the rulebook.

In case you missed it, the line in the rulebook that you have yet to disprove:

"This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

This is where you're wrong and I've shown you the rulebook and it states the rules of possession are the same. If you'd like to show me a section of the rulebook that says otherwise I'll cede your point. This isn't a matter of us agreeing or debating. It's a matter of what the rules say. All further discussion should include quotes from the rulebook.

In case you missed it, the line in the rulebook that you have yet to disprove:

You're missing the point entirely. He has the ball, with two feet down, and breaks the plane.

Conversion good.

That he loses the ball a second later is irrelevant because the play is over the nanosecond that the ball breaks the plane of the goal-line while he has possession of it. The issue isn't whether possession rules are different for the end zone, the issue is when the play ends. That's a very different set of circumstances for the end zone than it is anywhere else on the field.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

This is where you're wrong and I've shown you the rulebook and it states the rules of possession are the same. If you'd like to show me a section of the rulebook that says otherwise I'll cede your point. This isn't a matter of us agreeing or debating. It's a matter of what the rules say. All further discussion should include quotes from the rulebook.

In case you missed it, the line in the rulebook that you have yet to disprove:

Move on. He told you to knock it off once.

[TC81190]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

You're missing the point entirely. He has the ball, with two feet down, and breaks the plane.

Conversion good.

That he loses the ball a second later is irrelevant because the play is over the nanosecond that the ball breaks the plane of the goal-line while he has possession of it. The issue isn't whether possession rules are different for the end zone, the issue is when the play ends. That's a very different set of circumstances for the end zone than it is anywhere else on the field.

This. It's a pretty simple rule. He had the ball, stretching it out was the second act that established his possession. It crossed the goal line, play over.

[Roy Tucker]

I think fumbles and pass catches in the end zone are different animals.

If a running back takes a handoff, sails over the goal line (with control of the ball) and then hits the ground in the end zone and fumbles, its a TD.

If someone catches a ball in the air, sails over the goal line (with control of the ball) and then hits the ground and fumbles, its no catch. He has to demonstrate control of the ball after he hit the ground.

With this play, he made the catch, crossed the plane, hit the ground, and then the DB knocked the ball out. With the 80 bazillion fps video cameras they have, it appears to happen very slowly. But I think he demonstrated control for about 3 milliseconds. I wouldn't have overturned it. But then, my phone didn't ring with the ref asking me what I thought.

[TC81190]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I think fumbles and pass catches in the end zone are different animals.

If a running back takes a handoff, sails over the goal line (with control of the ball) and then hits the ground in the end zone and fumbles, its a TD.

If someone catches a ball in the air, sails over the goal line (with control of the ball) and then hits the ground and fumbles, its no catch. He has to demonstrate control of the ball after he hit the ground.

With this play, he made the catch, crossed the plane, hit the ground, and then the DB knocked the ball out. With the 80 bazillion fps video cameras they have, it appears to happen very slowly. But I think he demonstrated control for about 3 milliseconds. I wouldn't have overturned it. But then, my phone didn't ring with the ref asking me what I thought.

it's not so much that he had control, he did bobble it, but due to that rather obscure second act rule, the fact that he was able to take the ball and extend it over the goal line established his possession of the ball.

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by TC81190

it's not so much that he had control, he did bobble it, but due to that rather obscure second act rule, the fact that he was able to take the ball and extend it over the goal line established his possession of the ball.

Hmmm... Interesting. Google up "second act rule" and evidently its as clear as mud. I guess the call was made and what is, is.

Fun read... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...3&sportCat=nfl

[IslandRed]

I think sometimes the Occam's Razor thing has to apply. The rule is intended to make sure the receiver holds onto the ball when he hits the ground. In this case, he clearly did. The ball was knocked out subsequent to going to the ground, not simultaneously with it. It was a bang-bang play to be sure, and I'm sure examples can be found where similar plays were ruled no catch. The NFL has been very inconsistent at times. But again, I believe the rule is intended to cover the initial act of hitting the ground, not the entire period between hitting the ground and either getting up or getting hit.

But then, we're talking about the guys who came up with the tuck rule...