+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Cincinnati-Bengals-NFL)
+--- Forum: Around the NFL (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Around-the-NFL)
+--- Thread: Another catch rule controversy? (/Thread-Another-catch-rule-controversy)
Another catch rule controversy? - cinci4life - 01-06-2019
Just when you think we got the catch rule figured out something new pops up. In the Phi/Chi game currently ongoing, the Bears WR catches the ball while the defender had his right hand between the ball and the WR chest. The WR takes 3 steps being taken down on the third step when the defender dislodges the ball just before the WR hits the ground. The official immediately signals incomplete so no one picks up the ball until the same official eventually does. The booth calls for a review which clearly shows possession and 3 steps which by rule is a catch. After the review they said the play stands because there was no clear recovery. In this case I don't see why the ball wouldn't be spotted at the spot of the fumble and Bears retain possession. I'm sure that is something they discuss during the offseason.
RE: Another catch rule controversy? - Joelist - 01-06-2019
It was very poorly called. By the refs logic no incorrect call can be reversed if the ball its not possessed. Which means if they blow a play dead with a loose ball it can't be challenged?
RE: Another catch rule controversy? - SunsetBengal - 01-06-2019
To my way of thinking, it should have been treated the same as a fumble out of bounds. Ball should go to the team to last have possession, at the spot of the fumble. I guess we call that one an inadvertent whistle, as the official blew it dead, because from his point of view it looked incomplete?
RE: Another catch rule controversy? - McC - 01-06-2019
(01-06-2019, 08:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To my way of thinking, it should have been treated the same as a fumble out of bounds. Ball should go to the team to last have possession, at the spot of the fumble. I guess we call that one an inadvertent whistle, as the official blew it dead, because from his point of view it looked incomplete?
Since the official was giving the incomplete signal, no one even bothered to pick up the ball. If an Eagle had, like guys will often do, and had run it all the way back the other way, it would have had to have been a TD. The one time nobody does...
RE: Another catch rule controversy? - cinci4life - 01-06-2019
(01-06-2019, 08:39 PM)McC Wrote: Since the official was giving the incomplete signal, no one even bothered to pick up the ball. If an Eagle had, like guys will often do, and had run it all the way back the other way, it would have had to have been a TD. The one time nobody does...
If an Eagle would have picked up the ball they would get it at the spot of the recovery since play was blown dead.
RE: Another catch rule controversy? - TheUberHuber - 01-06-2019
The ref was right there with a perfect angle to see his 3rd foot go down. The real story is just how bad the nfl refs have become at making the right calls in the first place. So many times i see an obvious penalty not called then see on the replay that the ref was literally 5 yards away staring right at it. Alex Ericksons facemask no call in the Steelers game is a good example. They are just flat out terrible anymore and i blame Goodell mostly.
RE: Another catch rule controversy? - McC - 01-06-2019
Anybody think the Bears will have another kicker next year? How good does Robbie Gould sound right about now.