The Game Goat Thread: Wk. 12 @ Minnesota

deconstruction

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
3,663
Hanover NH
Ok; stupid question, but here goes.............why doesn't the play end when he broke the plane?

If a QB sneaks the ball over by extending it over the pile or a RB does the same thing and the ball gets knocked out, is that not a fumble but a touchdown?

If Henry broke the plane and did not extend the ball out, he would not have lost control of it.

Understood that he has no idea if he broke the plane, hence the need for him to extend the ball, but doing so cost them the touchdown.
Because when he's extending the ball (at first) he has only one foot down (thus not yet establishing himself "in bounds" and not meeting the criteria for a catch). In the other cases you describe, the runners have already established themselves in bounds.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
Because when he's extending the ball (at first) he has only one foot down (thus not yet establishing himself "in bounds" and not meeting the criteria for a catch). In the other cases you describe, the runners have already established themselves in bounds.
Ok, thanks for the explanation, I thought breaking the plane was enough, but apparently not.

Different rules apply to each scenario.

Thanks again.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
They called it a TD on the field.

I don't see what they saw in the review that would cause them to overturn the call, but what do I know.
 

cgori

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2004
4,004
SF, CA
Because when he's extending the ball (at first) he has only one foot down (thus not yet establishing himself "in bounds" and not meeting the criteria for a catch). In the other cases you describe, the runners have already established themselves in bounds.
I think (?) more accurately it's that a runner (as opposed to a receiver) already has possession, so a runner extending the ball over the plane causes the score, whereas on a catch, a receiver first has to catch the ball ("establish possession") and THEN cross the plane of the goal to score. So then we get into "what is a catch" and all the elements listed earlier/upthread, surviving the ground, and so forth. I think of this as being like the difference between fumble and incomplete pass on a swing pass - if the receiver isn't considered to have caught the ball, they can't fumble it, it's just incomplete. Same thing with the end zone, if you didn't catch it, you can't score.

I could be totally wrong about this, but it fits together for me. In another way, I hate that the NFL's rules are starting to make sense to me. :)
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,624
The Coney Island of my mind
They called it a TD on the field.

I don't see what they saw in the review that would cause them to overturn the call, but what do I know.
The league officials would do themselves a huge favor by (a) commiting to the call on the field being presumptively correct and (b) operationalizing or limiting how deep into the weeds the replay official can go on the review. You could say the officials have ninety seconds, or no more than three camera angles, or no slow-motion on the review, or whatever, and limit the Zaprudian nonsense along with the subesequent Talmudic inquiries into what God means when he thinks of a "catch" or a "football move."
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,018
Oregon
One more note on the officiating crew: they’re the crew that came under fire for missing a facemask in the Eagles-Commanders game. Missing another one has got to hurt.
I go back and forth on whether the NFL should acknowledge mistakes by ref crews more often. Not doing so frustrates fan bases, particularly on stand-alone national games where the replays are so widely seen; but I also believe that doing so more often will have more negative effects than positive.
It's a tough call, but I think I side on not having mistakes publicly acknowledged ... except in the most extreme cases (like the non-PI call in the Saints game).
 

SawtoothPatsFan

New Member
Dec 13, 2021
14
Idaho
The league officials would do themselves a huge favor by (a) commiting to the call on the field being presumptively correct and (b) operationalizing or limiting how deep into the weeds the replay official can go on the review. You could say the officials have ninety seconds, or no more than three camera angles, or no slow-motion on the review, or whatever, and limit the Zaprudian nonsense along with the subesequent Talmudic inquiries into what God means when he thinks of a "catch" or a "football move."
100% this. If a call isn't obviously wrong watching a replay at full speed, let it stand. If we're going to ask NFL officials to construe Delphic rules on the fly, remind (or perhaps establish) the replay officials that the applicable standard of review is clear error.

And relatedly, I appreciate the explanation the board's resident rules expert has provided. But however detailed and patient the explanation (it has been both), the checklist the officials are evidently supposed to apply (and indeed the rule itself) borders on farce.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
100% this. If a call isn't obviously wrong watching a replay at full speed, let it stand. If we're going to ask NFL officials to construe Delphic rules on the fly, remind (or perhaps establish) the replay officials that the applicable standard of review is clear error.
The NFL for some unknown and probably nonsensical reason dropped the "incontrovertible proof" standard for overturning calls on the field a few years ago; never really got a satisfactory explanation as to the reason.

And relatedly, I appreciate the explanation the board's resident rules expert has provided. But however detailed and patient the explanation (it has been both), the checklist the officials are evidently supposed to apply (and indeed the rule itself) borders on farce.
There is complexity in the catch rule because of the need to differentiate a catch-and-fumble from an incomplete pass.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188
The NFL for some unknown and probably nonsensical reason dropped the "incontrovertible proof" standard for overturning calls on the field a few years ago; never really got a satisfactory explanation as to the reason.


There is complexity in the catch rule because of the need to differentiate a catch-and-fumble from an incomplete pass.
I think they started telling refs to err on the side of letting the play continue. If refs aren't making the most accurate call they can in the moment, then it makes sense to use a lower standard in replay.
 

SawtoothPatsFan

New Member
Dec 13, 2021
14
Idaho
The NFL for some unknown and probably nonsensical reason dropped the "incontrovertible proof" standard for overturning calls on the field a few years ago; never really got a satisfactory explanation as to the reason.


There is complexity in the catch rule because of the need to differentiate a catch-and-fumble from an incomplete pass.
I'm aware that "incontrovertible video evidence" (or whatever the precise verbiage was), hasn't been the standard for a couple years. It also wasn't really ever the standard the refs were actually applying, so whatever. I was merely echoing the sentiment that the NFL could avoid at least some of this absurdity with a simplified "watch it a couple times at game speed, overturn if the call on the field was clearly wrong, if not call stands" process. Never going to happen, so probably not even worthy of discussion...

For what its worth, I think that the Hunter Henry play arguably wasn't even the worst application of this rule/interpretation this weekend. That honor (in my view at least) goes to the Raiders-Seahawks game, where the officials spent roughly six hours (OK, maybe 10 minutes) reviewing a DK Metcalf catch. Called a catch on the field, but reversed on review because while: (1) Metcalf caught the ball cleanly, (2) and clearly established himself in bounds, (3) when going frame by frame, you could see that the ball appeared to move a couple inches on Metcalf's chest/stomach as he rolled out of bounds.

Good on the NFL for being consistent, I guess. I'm not a Seahawks fan, but if that wasn't a catch, the rule is a problem. So I look forward to the rules committee taking another stab at it in the offseason, and complicating things further.