We got robbed tonight, and here is why.

Originally posted by linkboy:

Originally posted by NCommand:
OK, so essentially, they are treating it like a bobble-catch. While first contact, touch and first act of possession was inside the EZ, they didn't count that as a complete catch until a yard later after he rolled over and went OOB, stopping the clock. Gotcha.

I wonder if this has ever happened before. I can't ever remember a player catching a ball in the EZ and his own momentum carrying him out of the EZ making it not a full completion until the full process was completed outside the EZ.

Exactly and to be honest, you could make a damn good argument as to that being an incomplete pass.

I'd disagree there...while the tip of the ball did touch the ground he clearly had that ball secured and it didn't even move. Old rules, no doubt...no catch.

Originally posted by LottDMontanaO:
The bold isn't true - when it comes to plays at the goal line, the play is over when the player has control of the ball, is down, and at that exact moment the ball either touches or crosses the plane (if any part of the ball is in the space on, above, or across the goal line). It looks like Crabtree has control of the ball while his knee is touching the ground AND the ball is touching the plane.

And the process of the catch rule (aka the Calvin Johnson rule from the LionsBears game a few years ago) overrides that. A catch that involves a player going to the ground isn't a catch until the entire process of the catch is completed. That's the point people are missing.

Crabtree doesn't complete the process of the catch until his body and the ball are outside of the endzone (which occurs when he rolls over).

Originally posted by linkboy:

Originally posted by NCommand:

OK, so essentially, they are treating it like a bobble-catch. While first contact, touch and first act of possession was inside the EZ, they didn't count that as a complete catch until a yard later after he rolled over and went OOB, stopping the clock. Gotcha.

I wonder if this has ever happened before. I can't ever remember a player catching a ball in the EZ and his own momentum carrying him out of the EZ making it not a full completion until the full process was completed outside the EZ.

Exactly and to be honest, you could make a damn good argument as to that being an incomplete pass.

But did they rule it like a bobble catch? There has been no word/explanation on this yet. If they did, then yes, the act of the catch would need to be completed and then spotted where the catch was ruled completed (at the 1 or inside the 1). If they are treating it like a bobble-catch, then you have to wonder if it was really a catch or incomplete? If they didn't consider it a bobble-catch, it should have been ruled a TD in my opinion.

Originally posted by thl408:
Here it is. It starts with a poor throw from Kap. Gee look at who is giving up pressure up the gut. Theme for the game. I don't mean to be too harsh on the rook, but he was stinking it up out there.

Originally posted by thl408:
Here it is. It starts with a poor throw from Kap. Gee look at who is giving up pressure up the gut. Theme for the game. I don't mean to be too harsh on the rook, but he was stinking it up out there.

Yeah, I saw Martin have a bad game as well. We forget how important the center position really is. The QB of the offensive line and IMO he had a bad game. From setting the protection call and recognizing blitzes to blocking assignments. More importantly his snap count is off with Kaep and it costs us the game.

Originally posted by LottDMontanaO:
But did they rule it like a bobble catch? There has been no word/explanation on this yet. If they did, then yes, the act of the catch would need to be completed and then spotted where the catch was ruled completed (at the 1 or inside the 1). If they are treating it like a bobble-catch, then you have to wonder if it was really a catch or incomplete? If they didn't consider it a bobble-catch, it should have been ruled a TD in my opinion.

They ruled it on the field that Crabtree caught the and went out of bounds at the one yard line. The booth reviewed it and concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to overrule the call on the field.

First of all, I'm a Ram fan but I'm not here to troll your site. I just hear to tell a joke and rag on our favorite team to hate (in good fun). Feel free to come to our site and rag on us too. Be civil and we'll both enjoy it. We have fans from other teams come to our site to talk about upcoming games all the time and we all get along just fine. Here's our site: http://ramsondemand.com/

I think it's only fair to point out that the Rams were robbed of points/potential points twice in this game too so blaming it on the refs, while fun , isn't very productive or representative of what really happened IMO.

I thought it was a great defensive struggle that both teams had chances to win. You guys kicked our butts the first game and we pulled out a squeaker in this game. Good game guys!

OK, here's the joke and you only need to rearrange the names of the teams to make the Rams fan being pushed off the mountain.

For the world
A Rams fan, an Seahawks fan, a 49ers fan, and a Cardinals fan are climbing a mountain and arguing about who loves his team more. The ESeahawk fan insists he is the most loyal. 'This is for the Seahawks! ' he yells, and jumps off the side of the mountain. Not to be outdone, the Cardinals fan shouts, 'This is for the Cardinals!' and throws himself off the mountain. The Rams fan is next to profess his love for his team. He yells, 'This is for everyone!' and pushes the 49ers fan off the mountain.

It's a really tough one to assess b/c when it comes to an EZ TD, all a player has to do is maintain possession while breaking the plane of the goalline. Some would say that once the knees were down and his momentum is going backwards, he has given himself up on the play and forward momentum is stopped...and at that point, the ref just needs to confirm he continued to maintain possession throughout the entirety of the play while maintaining forward progress which, would have been a TD. Then on the flip side, they should have called a safety, b/c the player came out of the EZ on his own, jumped backwards back into the EZ on his own and was tackled there. You could tell he was trying to jump back to get around the defender and had Borland missed that tackle, he could have advanced past him to the ride side. Tough breaks. Fun to talk about and once again, it didn't go our way on these two but it certainly should never have come down to this one, no doubt. That we can ALL agree on!

Originally posted by linkboy:

Originally posted by LottDMontanaO:

The bold isn't true - when it comes to plays at the goal line, the play is over when the player has control of the ball, is down, and at that exact moment the ball either touches or crosses the plane (if any part of the ball is in the space on, above, or across the goal line). It looks like Crabtree has control of the ball while his knee is touching the ground AND the ball is touching the plane.

And the process of the catch rule (aka the Calvin Johnson rule from the LionsBears game a few years ago) overrides that. A catch that involves a player going to the ground isn't a catch until the entire process of the catch is completed. That's the point people are missing.

Crabtree doesn't complete the process of the catch until his body and the ball are outside of the endzone (which occurs when he rolls over).

I hear you and most of us vividly remember that game where they called that pass to C. Johnson incomplete because he didn't complete the process of the catch...what I'm saying is we still haven't heard from the refs and/or the league the explanation of this play. Did the refs rule that he bobbled the ball - can you definitively tell from the angles we saw? If he didn't, then the catch could be considered completed where he first caught it where his knee is touching the ground and the ball is touching the plane (just as if a WR was in the end zone and came back a little to catch a ball at the goal line, fell to his knees yet caught it securely where the ball touches the plane, and then fell back into the field of play at the 1 - this would be a TD).

Originally posted by LottDMontanaO:
I hear you and most of us vividly remember that game where they called that pass to C. Johnson incomplete because he didn't complete the process of the catch...what I'm saying is we still haven't heard from the refs and/or the league the explanation of this play. Did the refs rule that he bobbled the ball - can you definitively tell from the angles we saw? If he didn't, then the catch could be considered completed where he first caught it where his knee is touching the ground and the ball is touching the plane (just as if a WR was in the end zone and came back a little to catch a ball at the goal line, caught it securely where the ball touches the plane, and then fell back into the field of play at the 1 - this would be a TD).

No it wouldn't. The fact that he's going to the ground is what brings the process of the catch rule into effect, and because it's in effect, it's the first item the refs and replay official has to check. The refs have to break the play down like this:

A) Did the receiver complete the process of the catch (the ruling on the field said that he did)

B) Where was the ball located when the receiver completed the catch process (this is where Crabtree rolls out of bounds).

One a play like this, the catch occurs where the player completes the process, not where he starts it. That's why if Crabtree runs that route 1 to 2 yards deeper and the exact same thing happens, it's a TD.

Here is a video explanation by the NFL on these two calls. In short, both were ruled as originally called on the field b/c there wasn't enough video-evidence to overturn them. SF will tell you, 99 out of 100 times, both "original" calls would have been a Safety and a TD initially and upheld b/c of lack of video evidence. Why us? Why is it ALWAYS us. LOL

http://www.49ers.com/video/videos/VP-of-NFL-Officiating-on-No-Safety-Call-Fumble/5fbe6fba-4b0f-431e-91f1-517b10187e69

BTW: I have to call BS on the safety play as well b/c there ARE video cameras in line with the goal line for these very reasons. So how do they NOT have enough video evidence on the Safety call?

Originally posted by linkboy:

Originally posted by LottDMontanaO:

I hear you and most of us vividly remember that game where they called that pass to C. Johnson incomplete because he didn't complete the process of the catch...what I'm saying is we still haven't heard from the refs and/or the league the explanation of this play. Did the refs rule that he bobbled the ball - can you definitively tell from the angles we saw? If he didn't, then the catch could be considered completed where he first caught it where his knee is touching the ground and the ball is touching the plane (just as if a WR was in the end zone and came back a little to catch a ball at the goal line, caught it securely where the ball touches the plane, and then fell back into the field of play at the 1 - this would be a TD).

No it wouldn't. The fact that he's going to the ground is what brings the process of the catch rule into effect, and because it's in effect, it's the first item the refs and replay official has to check. The refs have to break the play down like this:

A) Did the receiver complete the process of the catch (the ruling on the field said that he did)

B) Where was the ball located when the receiver completed the catch process (this is where Crabtree rolls out of bounds).

One a play like this, the catch occurs where the player completes the process, not where he starts it. That's why if Crabtree runs that route 1 to 2 yards deeper and the exact same thing happens, it's a TD.

The ball touched the ground so he couldn't have completed the process of the catch at that point. The call was he caught the ball and maintained control to the ground at the 1. Thus, the play is a td since he caught the ball in the end zone. I would have even been ok with them calling it an incomplete by saying the ball moved (although I'm not sure it did). So, it's either a td or incomplete. A complete pass at the 1 shouldn't have been an option.

Originally posted by ptw1:
The ball touched the ground so he couldn't have completed the process of the catch at that point. The call was he caught the ball and maintained control to the ground at the 1. Thus, the play is a td since he caught the ball in the end zone. I would have even been ok with them calling it an incomplete by saying the ball moved (although I'm not sure it did). So, it's either a td or incomplete. A complete pass at the 1 shouldn't have been an option.

Actually, the ball can touch the ground if the player maintains possession of it while it contacts the ground, that's what the refs ruled.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

This is the NFL's rules regarding what's a legal catch or not.

Originally posted by linkboy:

Originally posted by ptw1:

The ball touched the ground so he couldn't have completed the process of the catch at that point. The call was he caught the ball and maintained control to the ground at the 1. Thus, the play is a td since he caught the ball in the end zone. I would have even been ok with them calling it an incomplete by saying the ball moved (although I'm not sure it did). So, it's either a td or incomplete. A complete pass at the 1 shouldn't have been an option.

Actually, the ball can touch the ground if the player maintains possession of it while it contacts the ground, that's what the refs ruled.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

This is the NFL's rules regarding what's a legal catch or not.

The key word is maintain which implies the catch was made before he hit the ground.

Originally posted by linkboy:

Originally posted by LottDMontanaO:

I hear you and most of us vividly remember that game where they called that pass to C. Johnson incomplete because he didn't complete the process of the catch...what I'm saying is we still haven't heard from the refs and/or the league the explanation of this play. Did the refs rule that he bobbled the ball - can you definitively tell from the angles we saw? If he didn't, then the catch could be considered completed where he first caught it where his knee is touching the ground and the ball is touching the plane (just as if a WR was in the end zone and came back a little to catch a ball at the goal line, caught it securely where the ball touches the plane, and then fell back into the field of play at the 1 - this would be a TD).

No it wouldn't. The fact that he's going to the ground is what brings the process of the catch rule into effect, and because it's in effect, it's the first item the refs and replay official has to check. The refs have to break the play down like this:

A) Did the receiver complete the process of the catch (the ruling on the field said that he did)

B) Where was the ball located when the receiver completed the catch process (this is where Crabtree rolls out of bounds).

One a play like this, the catch occurs where the player completes the process, not where he starts it. That's why if Crabtree runs that route 1 to 2 yards deeper and the exact same thing happens, it's a TD.

Many TD catches are "going to the ground", especially where the WR is falling to the ground heading towards out of bounds while catching the ball securely (no bobble) with either a knee or both feet in bounds. They don't call those catches incomplete just because the WR completed the catch in bounds yet falling to the ground out of bounds. Am I missing something here? The Calvin Johnson rule (pass thrown by Shaun Hill to C.J. if I'm not mistaken) for TDs to be considered good covers a player needing to complete the process of the catch while going to the ground and not losing it/bobbling during the process AND at the very end like he did that day. Crabtree didn't lose the ball at the end - yet again, if he did bobble it during the process of completing the catch (or if they ruled he bobbled it), it's either incomplete or spotted at the place where he completes the catch. It's all a moot point anyway and yes, the throw from Kap could have been better as many here have said.

Originally posted by ptw1:
The key word is maintain which implies the catch was made before he hit the ground.

Read what I posted above. Anytime a player goes to the ground to make a catch, Item 1 (aka the Calvin Johnson clause/rule) comes into play and before anything else can be determined, it has to be shown that this clause was met (the refs and replay officials determined that it was. Based on that, the player MUST maintain possession of the ball through the ENTIRE process of the catch, not just the beginning of it (which is what him being in the endzone is). The catch isn't over when Crabtree caught it in the endzone (since he was going to the ground and his momentum carried him out of the endzone). The catch, in this instance, ends one of three ways:

A) Crabtree is touched by a Ram's defender when he is down
B) Crabtree gets up and advances the ball
C) Crabtree goes out of bounds (which is what happened)

Personally, I felt it was an incomplete pass.