Question about the called back pick six

[jbeecham]

yes bceause he resecured the ball before Johnson punched it causing it to hit the ground. I've watched that part of it countless times, it's a catch.

I'm not sure how anyone can say that he resecured the ball...

The catch rules are all over the place and it's hard as hell to determine what is a catch & what isn't a catch.

He's supposed to have to control the ball all the way through the catch, but he doesn't. He loses the ball during the fall & he never gets 2 hands on it again until after the tip of the ball touches the ground.

We've seen guys catch the ball, turn & take 1-2 steps and cross the goal line with the ball & then have the ball slapped out of their hands & the refs have ruled it an incomplete pass. It's happened probably 4-5 times this year alone.

The only thing making this any different is that he's on his back in the endzone, but he never has stable control of the ball... it's moving around in his lap & then gets punched out. If he had 2 hands on the ball then I could understand the TD ruling, but 1 hand & a hip for .5 seconds of control isn't control in my book.

 

[Russ Smith]

I'm still baffled by the announcement on the play. We have fouls on both teams, and then they're both on us. I still wonder did he mean fouls on both the offense and defense but both were us because after the INT we became the offense?

Maybe he just misspoke but it sure seemed like they were going to offset and replay the down and that didn't happen.

 

[Russ Smith]

I'm not sure how anyone can say that he resecured the ball...

The catch rules are all over the place and it's hard as hell to determine what is a catch & what isn't a catch.

He's supposed to have to control the ball all the way through the catch, but he doesn't. He loses the ball during the fall & he never gets 2 hands on it again until after the tip of the ball touches the ground.

We've seen guys catch the ball, turn & take 1-2 steps and cross the goal line with the ball & then have the ball slapped out of their hands & the refs have ruled it an incomplete pass. It's happened probably 4-5 times this year alone.

The only thing making this any different is that he's on his back in the endzone, but he never has stable control of the ball... it's moving around in his lap & then gets punched out. If he had 2 hands on the ball then I could understand the TD ruling, but 1 hand & a hip for .5 seconds of control isn't control in my book.

It depends on what they determine to be control I guess. Take it to the absured, if he's unconscious on the endzone turf with the ball resting on top of him and we knock it out, it's probably not a catch. If he's unconscious but his hand is on the ball it probably is a catch.

He was sitting there with the ball resting on top of him, he then puts his hand on it and "re secures it" IMO. Then Johnson punches it and the ball touches the ground, but with his hand still on it. As they have said repeatedly the ball CAN touch the ground if there's control, his hand was on the ball the entire time Johnson tries to knock it out so I assume that's what they mean.

 

[Austin Zonie]

Is there a good angle to see the tip of the ball touching the ground? I don't recall being able to see that when watching the game.

 

[Shaggy]

I'm still baffled by the announcement on the play. We have fouls on both teams, and then they're both on us. I still wonder did he mean fouls on both the offense and defense but both were us because after the INT we became the offense?

Maybe he just misspoke but it sure seemed like they were going to offset and replay the down and that didn't happen.

Ok, the refs called 2 fouls on the play, both on the Cards. He may have anounced it wrong saying there were fouls on both teams, or he could have been saying their were 2 fouls on the offense and defense, as the Cards were both on that play(they were on D before the INT and then they were on O after the INT). Either way, the refs just threw flags on the cards, one for illegal hands to the face(Rucker) and taunting(Peterson). That's it.

They declined Peterson's and accepted Rucker's and ended up getting 5 yrds for that penalty and a 1st down.

 

[Russ Smith]

Ok, the refs called 2 fouls on the play, both on the Cards. He may have anounced it wrong saying there were fouls on both teams, or he could have been saying their were 2 fouls on the offense and defense, as the Cards were both on that play(they were on D before the INT and then they were on O after the INT). Either way, the refs just threw flags on the cards, one for illegal hands to the face(Rucker) and taunting(Peterson). That's it.

They declined Peterson's and accepted Rucker's and ended up getting 5 yrds for that penalty and a 1st down.

That's my question we were both teams offense defense or did he just misspeak because he didn't say on both the offense and the defense he said bot teams.

My guess is he must misspoke but the way it happened live you're thinking ok they called a penalty on them too and then they didn't.

 

[Shaggy]

That's my question we were both teams offense defense or did he just misspeak because he didn't say on both the offense and the defense he said bot teams.

My guess is he must misspoke but the way it happened live you're thinking ok they called a penalty on them too and then they didn't.

Yea, I really think he misspoke and never corrected himself.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Would it have been assessed on the ensuing kickoff of would it have been a spot foul because he was still in the field of play and the play wasn't over yet?

It would have been a 15 yard penalty from the spot where the taunting occurred. No touchdown, so we would have gotten the ball around the 30-35 yard line.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Is there a good angle to see the tip of the ball touching the ground? I don't recall being able to see that when watching the game.

I haven't seen one.

 

[Dback Jon]

It would have been a 15 yard penalty from the spot where the taunting occurred. No touchdown, so we would have gotten the ball around the 30-35 yard line.

Link?

I don't see that in the rules. It would be enforced on the kickoff.

 

[daves]

It would have been a 15 yard penalty from the spot where the taunting occurred. No touchdown, so we would have gotten the ball around the 30-35 yard line.

I don't think that's correct. Unless the rule was changed in the last couple of years, which i don't recall... you're describing the college rule. In the NFL the taunting is considered a dead-ball foul and enforced on the next play.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...r-negating-touchdowns-for-taunting-penalties/

Although, the note regarding Section 3, Article 1, part (c) is a little ambiguous!
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf

Penalty: (for a through h): Loss of 15 yards from succeeding spot or whatever spot the Referee, after
consulting with the crew, deems equitable.

...dbs

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I don't think that's correct. Unless the rule was changed in the last couple of years, which i don't recall... you're describing the college rule. In the NFL the taunting is considered a dead-ball foul and enforced on the next play.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...r-negating-touchdowns-for-taunting-penalties/

Although, the note regarding Section 3, Article 1, part (c) is a little ambiguous!
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf


...dbs

Definitely ambiguous. I thought I remember seeing that last year at some point.

I could be wrong though.