Can anyone explain to me how Tate's catch in the Bears/Lions was a catch and a TD ?

He had possession of that ball for like a second, he never really had it period in the field of play and was established as a runner. What is the difference in that play and the Eifert play two weeks ago ?

Like I said in the Eifert debate they have to clean this up.

And furthermore on the catch early in the Bills/Bengals game  by the Bills WR that ball was clearly trapped against the ground ! His hands were on the side of the ball !!

We have replay how do the refs keep screwing this up. The official in the booth for the broadcast even said it was clearly a trap.

What gives with the refs this year ???

(10-19-2015, 07:16 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Can anyone explain to me how Tate's catch in the Bears/Lions was a catch and a TD ?

Quote:He had possession of that ball 

That's why. He caught the ball, controlled it, and took two steps. That's possession. At that point, it's a TD. The fact that he then lost it is irrelevant.

With Eifert, the fact that he was going to the ground is what makes it a completely unrelated issue. When you are going to the ground, you have to maintain control the whole time to have possession. It's a dumb rule, but Tate was not going to the ground. 

Blandino's explanation:

"The ruling on the field was an interception. Golden Tate controlled the pass right at the goal line," Blandino said. "The ball came loose and was eventually caught by a Chicago defender. This is different than the plays we've been talking about, the Dez Bryant play or the Calvin Johnson play. This is not a receiver who's going to the ground. The issue here is, did he become a runner before the ball came loose? Did he have control, both feet down, and then time enough to become a runner after the second foot is down?

When you watch the play the ball comes loose, he is taking his third step, the third step is almost on the ground when the ball comes out. He had demonstrated possession, had become a runner, once the ball breaks the plane of the goal line in possession of a runner it is a touchdown and the play is over at that point."



Had this occurred on the 50 yard line or so, it would have been a fumble recovered by Chicago, not a pick, as Tate had possession and then lost it.

It's a very dumb rule !!!!

If a player has clear possession in the field of play, as Eifert did, takes 2 or more steps in the field then crosses the goal line he should have been considered a runner at that point. The whole being engaged by a tackler is BS.

Tate had the ball on the field of play (if at all) for a half a nanno second. He was never established on the field, 98% of the ball was on the goal line when caught.

How does Tate ever get established as a runner crossing the goal line ? He was a receiver already in the end zone. They need to clean this rule up it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy to open to interpretation.

The whole Calvin Johnson rule thing is stupid - period. We don't need all these rules.

(10-19-2015, 07:16 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Can anyone explain to me how Tate's catch in the Bears/Lions was a catch and a TD ?

He had possession of that ball for like a second, he never really had it period in the field of play and was established as a runner. What is the difference in that play and the Eifert play two weeks ago ?

Like I said in the Eifert debate they have to clean this up.

And furthermore on the catch early in the Bills/Bengals game  by the Bills WR that ball was clearly trapped against the ground ! His hands were on the side of the ball !!

We have replay how do the refs keep screwing this up. The official in the booth for the broadcast even said it was clearly a trap.

What gives with the refs this year ???

http://bengalsboard.net/Thread-Golden-Tate-TD-vs-Tyler-Eifert-TD

(10-19-2015, 08:29 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: It's a very dumb rule !!!!

If a player has clear possession in the field of play, as Eifert did, takes 2 or more steps in the field then crosses the goal line he should have been considered a runner at that point. The whole being engaged by a tackler is BS.

Tate had the ball on the field of play (if at all) for a half a nanno second. He was never established on the field, 98% of the ball was on the goal line when caught.

How does Tate ever get established as a runner crossing the goal line ? He was a receiver already in the end zone. They need to clean this rule up it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy to open to interpretation.

The whole Calvin Johnson rule thing is stupid - period. We don't need all these rules.

Half a nano second is all Tate needs to have possession. Those two steps he took with control of the ball was what mattered. 

(10-19-2015, 07:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's why. He caught the ball, controlled it, and took two steps. That's possession. At that point, it's a TD. The fact that he then lost it is irrelevant.

With Eifert, the fact that he was going to the ground is what makes it a completely unrelated issue. When you are going to the ground, you have to maintain control the whole time to have possession. It's a dumb rule, but Tate was not going to the ground. 

Tate went to the ground... without the ball.  Your argument does not work.  Watch the play again.  He falls -- goes to the ground -- and doesn't even HAVE the ball.

(10-19-2015, 07:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Blandino's explanation:

"The ruling on the field was an interception. Golden Tate controlled the pass right at the goal line," Blandino said. "The ball came loose and was eventually caught by a Chicago defender. This is different than the plays we've been talking about, the Dez Bryant play or the Calvin Johnson play. This is not a receiver who's going to the ground. The issue here is, did he become a runner before the ball came loose? Did he have control, both feet down, and then time enough to become a runner after the second foot is down?

When you watch the play the ball comes loose, he is taking his third step, the third step is almost on the ground when the ball comes out. He had demonstrated possession, had become a runner, once the ball breaks the plane of the goal line in possession of a runner it is a touchdown and the play is over at that point."



Had this occurred on the 50 yard line or so, it would have been a fumble recovered by Chicago, not a pick, as Tate had possession and then lost it.

99% of the time if the ball never hits the ground, that's a pick.

(10-19-2015, 11:50 PM)EatonFan Wrote: Tate went to the ground... without the ball.  Your argument does not work.  Watch the play again.  He falls -- goes to the ground -- and doesn't even HAVE the ball.

Umm... Tate went to the ground because he was tackled. He didn't go to the ground as he was trying to catch the ball...
He caught the ball, took two steps, and then he was tackled and lost the ball. The tackle occurred after possession was established. The very moment possession was established, it is a TD. Any subsequent loss of the ball is irrelevant.


In the Dez and Eifert catches, they were going to the ground as they caught the ball. That's why the stupid rule goes into effect for them. Had they caught the ball, taken some steps, and THEN went to the ground, it would be just like Tate's TD. 

It's also not an argument. I am explaining the NFL's rules. You're welcome.

Clearly you need to rewatch the Eifert TD. He took two steps in the field of play (that 100 yards between the endzones) and crossed the goal line as a runner. The whole time engaged by a tackler.

On the Tate catch he's a receiver catching the ball in the endzone (the 10 yards on both ends) Tate was also immediately engaged by a tackler.

If you are a runner with clear possession in the field of play (the 100 yards between the endzones) the instant the ball crosses the first mili inch of the goal line it's a touch down.

Tate was a receiver who caught the ball in the endzone (the 10 yards on either end) that you can't be established as a runner in because by default you instantly ummmmmmmmm score.

Tate had to complete the catch because he was a receiver. Which he didn't because the ball was nearly instantly knocked lose and intercepted.

Every announcer/analyst/ex-player I've heard comment on the Tate TD says it was clearly an interception.

Not real sure where you came up with a fumble ?

(10-19-2015, 07:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's why. He caught the ball, controlled it, and took two steps. That's possession. At that point, it's a TD. The fact that he then lost it is irrelevant.

With Eifert, the fact that he was going to the ground is what makes it a completely unrelated issue. When you are going to the ground, you have to maintain control the whole time to have possession. It's a dumb rule, but Tate was not going to the ground. 

He took one step and then lost it (almost at the same time).

It wasn't a catch.

It's not like Tate stopped gripping the ball and was getting ready to spike it when it was knocked out because he was still securing it.

(10-19-2015, 11:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Half a nano second is all Tate needs to have possession. Those two steps he took with control of the ball was what mattered. 

That's not possession if it's half a nano second.  You need to have clear possession of the ball and complete the catch, which I don't even get why people are arguing it.  The dudes on Around The Horn are going nuts over it and I want to roll in there and tell them they're stupid.

And he didn't take two steps with the ball, he barely got a foot down a fraction of a second before the ball was stripped.

You need to have clear possession and make a football move (or take two steps), which there might be a bunch of black and white like "two steps" or "a football move" and sometimes it gets blurry, but anyone who knows anything about football knows that he never completely had control of the ball and it wasn't a catch.

(10-20-2015, 01:03 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Clearly you need to rewatch the Eifert TD. He took two steps in the field of play (that 100 yards between the endzones) and crossed the goal line as a runner. The whole time engaged by a tackler.

On the Tate catch he's a receiver catching the ball in the endzone (the 10 yards on both ends) Tate was also immediately engaged by a tackler.

If you are a runner with clear possession in the field of play (the 100 yards between the endzones) the instant the ball crosses the first mili inch of the goal line it's a touch down.

And they determined that he was going to the ground prior to having possession. Because of this silly rule (remember, I agree it is silly) he had to maintain control all the way to the ground to get possession. He pushes on the ground with his feet as he is falling, but they determined that this was not an actual step. I personally think the rule is junk and it should have been a TD.

Quote:Tate was a receiver who caught the ball in the endzone (the 10 yards on either end) that you can't be established as a runner in because by default you instantly ummmmmmmmm score.

As soon as you have possession you score. When he planted his feet, had control of the ball, and took two steps, he had possession. The play is over at that moment. 

Quote:Tate had to complete the catch because he was a receiver. Which he didn't because the ball was nearly instantly knocked lose and intercepted.

False. He completed the catch after he took two steps. Play is over. Midway through his 3rd step, he loses the ball, but the play was already over.

Quote:Every announcer/analyst/ex-player I've heard comment on the Tate TD says it was clearly an interception.

And the only person who matters, Blandino, explained why the rules state that he was not a pick. This argument is like saying "every pundit and politician thinks this law is constitutional" after the Supreme Court says it is not. 

Quote:Not real sure where you came up with a fumble ?

Because once you have complete a catch, any subsequent loss of possession is a fumble. If a receiver caught a ball, took 3 steps, it flew out of their hands, and a defender caught it, it is not a pick. 

(10-19-2015, 07:16 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Can anyone explain to me how Tate's catch in the Bears/Lions was a catch and a TD ?

He had possession of that ball for like a second, he never really had it period in the field of play and was established as a runner. What is the difference in that play and the Eifert play two weeks ago ?

Like I said in the Eifert debate they have to clean this up.

And furthermore on the catch early in the Bills/Bengals game  by the Bills WR that ball was clearly trapped against the ground ! His hands were on the side of the ball !!

We have replay how do the refs keep screwing this up. The official in the booth for the broadcast even said it was clearly a trap.

What gives with the refs this year ???

Because... He didnt go to the ground. He was determined to have possesion in the endzone before he lost it. catching a ball for a TD in the endzone all you have to do is have the ball and 2 feet down. TD.... after that it doesnt matter.

but when crossing the plane itself or becoming a runner into the endzone its a bit different.

eifert had made the catch so we thought but was he caught it the tackle began immediately. and he lost it going to the ground which he must maintain possesion while being tackled as he was going to the ground.


Point..

HOLD ON TO THE BALL... especially until after they raise their hands.

How was that first Jacksonville Score a TD? He dropped it as soon as it hit ground and he didn't really establish himself as a runner anymore than Eifert did in his overturned TD imo...

(10-25-2015, 12:07 PM)Pezmerga Wrote: How was that first Jacksonville Score a TD? He dropped it as soon as it hit ground and he didn't really establish himself as a runner anymore than Eifert did in his overturned TD imo...

Yea, I was wondering the same thing. I only saw it on the crappy stream.

OK, I watched it. He jumps, grabs, and lands with control. He gets tackled and dives forward as he is tackled, crossing the goal line.

Since the dive was not a part of the catch, he had already established possession and crossed the goal line prior to losing the ball.