• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

Even the replacement refs hate the Bengals

mrschaney

Well-Known Member
4,794
1,332
173
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Our catches weren't catches, and their non-catches for td's were?

Just one more example of poor officiating against the Bengals in an attempt to stifle "THE BROWN SYSTEM""!....to hold us back because the NFL is scared of a dynasty, ESPECIALLY in Cincinnatti! Just think of the money to be lost in the NFL should a small market franchise like the Bengals have a dynasty.
And a dynasty is what we would have if the NFL didn't stifle Mike Brown!
The NFL would go broke, they only want the big spenders to win. Mike BRown CAN win and win big on a budget! That is why the NFL will NEVER ALLOW the Bengals to win!
So here's to you National Football League and to the refs, replacement or otherwise:

:finger:
 

Cincyfan78

Well-Known Member
11,620
2,332
173
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Boldin's "catch" was a trap. I don't think there is much doubt about it.

I'm not 100% sure that AJ green's was a catch though. Going off memory here, but I don't think he made a football move, and you have to keep possesion through the catch...meaning even if your arm hits the ground. Stupid rule. The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion. They need to make these rules the same for WR's who catch the ball, and RB's who run the ball.

Same thing for when WR's are in the endzone with 2 feet down, but must maintain control through the catch; where as the RB only needs to break the plane, but then if he fumbles it doesn't matter. By that rule, as soon as a WR catches the ball with 2 feet in, the play should be dead.
 

bengaldoug

former pessimistic homer
7,553
4
38
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Location
Dayton, OH
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I thought he made a football move, which at that point meant when he went to the ground with possession it was a catch, and the ground couldn't cause a fumble, but it's a moot point, since we couldn't stop them anyway.....
 

flamingrey

Active Member
5,536
0
36
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Boldin's "catch" was a trap. I don't think there is much doubt about it.

I'm not 100% sure that AJ green's was a catch though. Going off memory here, but I don't think he made a football move, and you have to keep possesion through the catch...meaning even if your arm hits the ground. Stupid rule. The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion. They need to make these rules the same for WR's who catch the ball, and RB's who run the ball.

Same thing for when WR's are in the endzone with 2 feet down, but must maintain control through the catch; where as the RB only needs to break the plane, but then if he fumbles it doesn't matter. By that rule, as soon as a WR catches the ball with 2 feet in, the play should be dead.

They key here is "football move".

When a running back enters into the endzone, he's already made a "football move"; in effect, establishing full control and possession of the ball. Therefore, as soon as the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD. The same goes for a receiver that catches the ball outside the endzone. They'll have made a football move having established full control and possession of the ball (in essence, they're now a runner).

However, a player that simply catches the ball in the endzone and gets 2 feet down has not made that "football move" to establish full control and possession of the ball; therefore, if they're falling to the ground as the catch is made, they must complete their "football move" - rolling on the ground and/or get up - in order to show complete possession. And this is the same for a catch made falling out of bounds or a catch made while falling on the ground anywhere on the field.

There is no contradiction here.

AJ Green took a few steps with the ball prior to hitting the ground so the reception had been established. It was a completed pass. The refs missed it and so did Marvin.

Boldin as described in the latter case above caught the ball in the endzone, so he had to at the very least hit the ground and maintain possession. He did not. The ball jarred loose and hit the ground*. However, the nose or the face of the ball can hit the ground, but the ball cannot show movement as a result of the impact. In Boldin's case you could see the ball wobbling. Incomplete pass.
 

Cincyfan78

Well-Known Member
11,620
2,332
173
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
They key here is "football move".

When a running back enters into the endzone, he's already made a "football move"; in effect, establishing full control and possession of the ball. Therefore, as soon as the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD. The same goes for a receiver that catches the ball outside the endzone. They'll have made a football move having established full control and possession of the ball (in essence, they're now a runner).

However, a player that simply catches the ball in the endzone and gets 2 feet down has not made that "football move" to establish full control and possession of the ball; therefore, if they're falling to the ground as the catch is made, they must complete their "football move" - rolling on the ground and/or get up - in order to show complete possession. And this is the same for a catch made falling out of bounds or a catch made while falling on the ground anywhere on the field.

There is no contradiction here.

AJ Green took a few steps with the ball prior to hitting the ground so the reception had been established. It was a completed pass. The refs missed it and so did Marvin.

Boldin as described in the latter case above caught the ball in the endzone, so he had to at the very least hit the ground and maintain possession. He did not. The ball jarred loose and hit the ground*. However, the nose or the face of the ball can hit the ground, but the ball cannot show movement as a result of the impact. In Boldin's case you could see the ball wobbling. Incomplete pass.


I guess my point for a WR is: Why can't a catch with 2 feet down be a "football move"? I mean, the guy catches it, plants to feet down. At that specific point in time, it is a catch. Is the act of making a catch not a specific football move? I mean, in theory, the RB is already making a football move simply by taking the handoff. You mean that if he took a hand off standing completely and totally still and the other team hit him and he fumbled it wouldn't be a fumble because he technically didn't make a "move" or a "football move"? To me, it's just a silly rule for WR's. If the guy makes the catch, two feet in, and has obvious control of the football, it should be a TD/catch. All I would care about is showing that the WR had a chance to have actual control of the football before hitting the ground, or getting hit.

I'll defer on the AJ "catch" because, honestly I don't remember the entire play. I know a lot of people said it should have been challenged, but chances are the screw-up refs would have struck again. As they did with Boldin's TD catch.

Speaking of rules that don't make sense: I also hate the punt rule where the defender has to keep himself out of the endzone. If a punt is accidently touched by a punting teams' player at the 35 and roles to the 25, it is marked down at the spot of contact. But, if the ball is touched at the 1, and rolls, or the player falls, into the endzone it is a touchback. Makes little sense.
 

flamingrey

Active Member
5,536
0
36
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
So what about a play where a receiver makes a "catch" with his feet already planted on the ground, but in a boom, boom play - as soon as the ball is "caught" the receiver gets hit - the ball is jarred loose upon impact. Should that also count as a reception? How many seconds does a receiver have to maintain that possession for it to count? By doing this, you're adding way more subjectivity to a play/call. That is why it is important to establish that possession by also making a "move".

As for your RB example, it would absolutely be a fumble. Not by the RB, but by the QB who did have possession. It's the exact same scenario as a muffed handoff from the center to the QB. The QB may have never had possession, but it would be a fumble nonetheless, just on the center and not the QB.
 

Cincyfan78

Well-Known Member
11,620
2,332
173
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
So what about a play where a receiver makes a "catch" with his feet already planted on the ground, but in a boom, boom play - as soon as the ball is "caught" the receiver gets hit - the ball is jarred loose upon impact. Should that also count as a reception? How many seconds does a receiver have to maintain that possession for it to count? By doing this, you're adding way more subjectivity to a play/call. That is why it is important to establish that possession by also making a "move".

As for your RB example, it would absolutely be a fumble. Not by the RB, but by the QB who did have possession. It's the exact same scenario as a muffed handoff from the center to the QB. The QB may have never had possession, but it would be a fumble nonetheless, just on the center and not the QB.

By this thinking, the same would then be applied to the WR who catches the ball, puts two feet down, and then is hit "boom". Possession established between the QB who did have complete posesion and the WR who did catch the ball and placed two feet down. Fumble.


There's no right or wrong here. Just spit-balling. There's got to be a more definative way to make the call, I would think. Maybe there's not. Maybe, yes if they did that, there would be more fumbles?

I do agree, you don't want more subjectivity on the ref's shoulders...so maybe the rule is as good as it's going to get. Much like how they tried to change the rule about catching the ball and then being hit out of bounds and having the ref decide if the WR would have been in bounds if he had not been hit out...only to change it back again later to WR must be in bounds even if they get knocked out by the defensive player.

Again, just spit-ballin'...
 

flamingrey

Active Member
5,536
0
36
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
By this thinking, the same would then be applied to the WR who catches the ball, puts two feet down, and then is hit "boom". Possession established between the QB who did have complete posesion and the WR who did catch the ball and placed two feet down. Fumble.

That would be the case if a WR catching the ball and only placing 2 feet down were considered to have made a completion, but that's not the case. It's an incomplete pass. Furthermore, a handoff is different than a forward pass. With a forward pass there is no longer an established possession anywhere on the field. Otherwise any incomplete pass would be ruled a fumble.

This is clear cut. This is absolutely the best way to do and also the most definitive.
 

DanBengalfan

Raving lunatic
11,603
598
113
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
yea, in that case the defense would let the receiver catch it more often in order to try and force a fumble.
 

DanBengalfan

Raving lunatic
11,603
598
113
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
also, the handoff always takes place behind the line of scrimmage, so yes, it would always be a fumble, same as a bad lateral pass.
 
Top