Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

(01-23-2023, 03:17 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: [ -> ]I think both are incomplete. I don't agree with the Dobbs call. 

That’s the problem, just the like non-catch TD - lack of consistency.

(01-23-2023, 11:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: [ -> ]It's not that controversial as a call. Chase caught the ball, went to the ground, lost control then regained control. By the time he regained control he had slid out of bounds. It was not a catch.

It’s a TD the exact second he has control 2 feet down in the endzone


With the logic they used when guys run for phylum TDs and hit the Phylon and lose it when they are out of bounds those shouldn’t be TDs

(01-23-2023, 03:22 PM)Housh Wrote: [ -> ]It’s a TD the exact second he has control 2 feet down in the endzone


With the logic they used when guys run for phylum TDs and hit the Phylon and lose it when they are out of bounds those shouldn’t be TDs

No, it is not. If the ball is in play outside of the endzone, the play is over the second the ball crosses the white line. For catches in the end zone, the catch process has to be completed. Chase lost control of the ball as his second foot was coming down. The process of a catch was re-initiated, and Chase lost the ball again. He slid out of bounds afterwards. 

(01-23-2023, 03:13 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: [ -> ]Tell the league that.

If Josh Allen’s was “incomplete” should Josh Dobbs’ be a incomplete? #Titans pic.twitter.com/a4FvK9zb7c

— AtoZ Sports Nashville (@AtoZSports) January 22, 2023

Look, they're inconsistent on lots of things including you're rather emphatic description on Chase's non-catch and why it was a non-catch. Watch enough football and we can discuss plenty in the past as to why the pass to Chase was a actually a TD catch. All I know is Allen's hand and fingers were going forward and that the ball went forward. Pretty obvious.

(01-23-2023, 03:26 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: [ -> ]No, it is not. If the ball is in play outside of the endzone, the play is over the second the ball crosses the white line. For catches in the end zone, the catch process has to be completed. Chase lost control of the ball as his second foot was coming down. The process of a catch was re-initiated, and Chase lost the ball again. He slid out of bounds afterwards. 

100% correct.Not sure why it's so difficult for people to understand the rule. Fair rule, inconsistent rule, well, that's for another discussion but by rule it was not a catch.

(01-23-2023, 03:28 PM)higgy100 Wrote: [ -> ]100% correct.Not sure why it's so difficult for people to understand the rule. Fair rule, inconsistent rule, well, that's for another discussion but by rule it was not a catch.

Yeah, if Chase was a stealer it would of been a catch lol

(01-23-2023, 03:22 PM)Housh Wrote: [ -> ]It’s a TD the exact second he has control 2 feet down in the endzone


With the logic they used when guys run for phylum TDs and hit the Phylon and lose it when they are out of bounds those shouldn’t be TDs

Not when you're falling out of bounds. 

(01-23-2023, 03:26 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: [ -> ]No, it is not. If the ball is in play outside of the endzone, the play is over the second the ball crosses the white line. For catches in the end zone, the catch process has to be completed. Chase lost control of the ball as his second foot was coming down. The process of a catch was re-initiated, and Chase lost the ball again. He slid out of bounds afterwards. 

I think I’m conflating running into the endzone and receiving in the endzone

You are right i think

(01-23-2023, 10:57 AM)Tomkat Wrote: [ -> ]This is not sour grapes, I'm genuinely curious.
Can someone find in the rule book exactly what a catch is?
The only reason I ask is because in a game (last week? - I can't remember exactly) a receiver made a catch along the sideline, got THREE feet (steps) inbounds, then was hit and lost control once he hit the ground. The rules guy (Gene Steratore?) said that at that point, the ground was no longer a factor, because of the three steps. There may have been something about a "football move" but I'm not 100% certain.

Anyhow... AT WHAT POINT does the ground (or a defender knocking the ball loose) no longer matter? Is it 3 steps... 4.... 5?
Are the rules different for sideline vs end zone?

For what it's worth, I can totally understand why the call was overturned - as both of Chase's hands were off the ball at one point.
My question is... at what point should that no longer matter?

Chase caught that ball.Watch it back in super slow mo.He secured it to his chest with his left arm before he went out of bounds.

I’ve always hated this rule that the NFL has as a confirmed catch.If the player comes down with the ball in his hands,while confirming that the ball was caught inbounds,It should be a catch.

I don’t care if there is a little spinning of the ball on the way down.When all is done,and the ball is in his hands at the completion of the play,assuming it doesn’t hit the ground,then it’s a catch.

(Of course,the NFL isn’t going to see it that way.)

(01-23-2023, 11:06 AM)packerbacker Wrote: [ -> ]Bad call. You guys would have had 31 points instead of 27.

34

(01-24-2023, 01:54 PM)BengalB Wrote: [ -> ]34

No... 31 is correct.  The Bengals still got a FG out of the "Chase non-TD" drive.
That's a difference of 4 points.  27+4 = 31

(01-23-2023, 03:03 PM)Tomkat Wrote: [ -> ]It actually BENEFITTED the Bengals to have that called incomplete.... as Buffalo had recovered the "fumble" for a first down.

Umm no. Bengals made the recovery. Still don't know how they found indisputable evidence to overturn that but luckily it didn't affect the outcome.

(01-24-2023, 02:41 PM)cinci4life Wrote: [ -> ]Umm no. Bengals made the recovery. Still don't know how they found indisputable evidence to overturn that but luckily it didn't affect the outcome.

Yea, you're right... Hendrickson recovered it.  I must be thinking of a different play.

(01-23-2023, 01:09 PM)Graphicguy Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a "CATCH" expert, but was telling my compadres of the play..."once he secured the ball (which he did) in the end zone, that's a TD". Now, whatever happened after that becomes a moot point. Whether he lost the ball afterwards, whether he was or wasn't in bounds at that juncture, doesn't matter. Once he caught it in the end zone, it's a TD.

Even if it was debatable, I thought there had to be overwhelming evidence to overturn a call on the field.

We won....by a lot. I'm happy. But, that reversal sure did smell....and badly!!!!!

The ball moved, but that doesn’t matter. The ball is allowed to move if he maintains control, which it sure look like he did for the 3 steps he took. It was never bobbled or loose, he had it pinned between hand and body the whole time. He didn’t lose control until his butt hit the ground. By then, it’s a touchdown. The third step to me, and according to the rules, should have made this a TD.

(01-24-2023, 02:41 PM)cinci4life Wrote: [ -> ]Umm no. Bengals made the recovery. Still don't know how they found indisputable evidence to overturn that but luckily it didn't affect the outcome.

The hand and fingers were moving forward and that's all it takes. Plain as day to see that. Also, how else did the ball go forward several feet if either the arm, hand or fingers weren't going forward. Obviously, ZT felt the same was as he did not throw the red flag after watching it on replay.

(01-24-2023, 03:24 PM)jungle93 Wrote: [ -> ]The ball moved, but that doesn’t matter. The ball is allowed to move if he maintains control, which it sure look like he did for the 3 steps he took. It was never bobbled or loose, he had it pinned between hand and body the whole time. He didn’t lose control until his butt hit the ground. By then, it’s a touchdown. The third step to me, and according to the rules, should have made this a TD.

I may be wrong here but going to the ground and having control of the ball seems to be the main thing that supersedes anything else regarding a catch in the end zone and going out of bounds. I agree he had total possession on at least 2-3 steps but he did fall OOB and only at that time after hitting the ground was their movement.

I think one thing not being discussed is that Milano, the LB, did make a play on the ball by touching it/ grabbing his arm. Had that not happened they may have ruled that play a TD because no defender was even there. Who knows maybe there's even subjectivity with that on the replay.

(01-23-2023, 03:26 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: [ -> ]No, it is not. If the ball is in play outside of the endzone, the play is over the second the ball crosses the white line. For catches in the end zone, the catch process has to be completed. Chase lost control of the ball as his second foot was coming down. The process of a catch was re-initiated, and Chase lost the ball again. He slid out of bounds afterwards. 

This is the most helpful explanation I've seen.  Thanks.

(01-24-2023, 03:47 PM)higgy100 Wrote: [ -> ]I may be wrong here but going to the ground and having control of the ball seems to be the main thing that supersedes anything else regarding a catch in the endzone and going out of bounds. I agree he had total possession on at least 2-3 steps but he did fall OOB and only at that time was their movement.

I think one thing not being discussed is that Milano, the LB, did make a play on the ball by touching it/ grabbing his arm. Had that not happened they may have ruled that play a TD because no defender was even there. Who knows maybe there's even subjectivity with that on the replay.

There is some subjectivity, yeah. The rule states that "movement of the ball does not automatically signal loss of control". That is all it says, though. This to me says that the refs determined that Chase had not fully secured the ball at that point OR believe that he lost control. Either way, the catch process was started at that moment, and Chase failed to complete it throughout. 

(01-24-2023, 03:59 PM)BRM13 Wrote: [ -> ]This is the most helpful explanation I've seen.  Thanks.

It is very good Chase did not lose the ball on his 2nd step. He lost it when he hit the ground and was sliding, of which the defender had a hand in.Wouldn't even call it losing it but there was definitely movement between his hands and the ball.

(01-23-2023, 01:07 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: [ -> ]That's not part of the rule anymore. He just needed to keep the ball from moving, as it did, in order for it to be a completed catch.

Sometimes you just have to break the plain