Are You Ready for Some Football - Week 16

[Kidlicious]

Bulger wasn't 100%, but it was nice to see the running game looking good.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Ned
Has anyone explained that bad call on the Bear touchdown that was called a "non catch."

Has the league apologized?

The official on the spot had called the catch good, but OB. The replay official said it was in bounds, but also revealed a loss of control when Berrian hit the ground.

The league office backed the officials.

I can't think of a single case where that play would be anything other than a TD, if the play was by our opposition. Chicagoans' feeling that the league is out to screw The Beloved continues to grow...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe if the Bears were like going to the playoffs or something, by why would the league want to 'screw' a team with a bad record? All it does is give them a better draft pick.

[pchang]

And so, the conspiracy theory begins....

[-Jrabbit]

Imran, I'm not serious about that. Even idiot Chicago fans know we need the draft pick more than the win.

It was, however, a bad call, exacerbated by a bad replay analysis. Even Mariucci thought it was a TD, and said so publicly. Not often an opposing coach will do that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eh, the Bears will do what they usually do and botch the draft pick . Just kidding... btw how are Harris and Haynes (from last year) doing?

[Ned]

Well frankly what happened has left me confused as to what the rule is for legal catch. Do you have to have both feet in bounds regardless of control and also control the ball when you hit the ground? Most people seem to think that if you have two feet in bounds while controlling the ball you have a legal catch even if you later lose control.

What is the rule?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure for the endzone, but in the field of play, I believe you have to have control all the way to the ground (though I could be wrong).

[Ned]

From the NFL digest of rules:

8. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

http://www.nfl.com/news/rulesdigest.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess the difference is on what 'clearly possesses' means.

The NFL said this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1954029

"The NFL office is saying he didn't have control when he landed out-of-bounds," Smith said. "Just because you have two feet in-bounds doesn't mean it's a catch if you land out-of-bounds without control. That's what they say the ruling was based on. Of course I still see it differently, and we'll move on from there."

[Ned]

Rrom the Rulebook:

23. Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/definitions

There is nothing in the rules to support the ruling by the officials.

[Ned]

Thanks Imran. But, what they said clearly contravene the published rules. That is why this is a puzzle.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doesn't matter... the NFL office agreed with the officials, which means that this is either something that had been happening (and wasn't as controversial before) or the office likes the officials interpretation of the rules and thus is saying that will be the definitive interpretation.

Either way, the NFL Office is the ultimate authority and that means that the officials were not acting wrongly, FWIW.

[Ned]

Well, that's two games the Bears lost because of this rule. Earlier in the season, Urlacher appeared to intercept a pass at a critical stage in a close game. It was called incomplete. Replays showed Urlacher had the ball, took two steps, then lost control as he attempted to move the ball to another hand. The ball went out of bounds. At the time, everyone thought the refs had it wrong, but Smith, IIRC, did not challenge the ruling.

[-Jrabbit]

Wasn't that the first Detroit game?

Possession calls are notiously tough to be consistent on, and I understand how and why this comes up. I always thought that posession was possession, and what happens later immaterial. Like fumbling once you're already in the endzone doesn't matter, since the TD itself ends the play. In this case Berrian first made the catch, then got both feet down in the end zone, in bounds. To me, that's possession and TD, what happens afterwards doesn't matter. And I've seen it called that way, seems like many times.

The article from the Detroit Free Press (reprinted in Wednesday's Chicago Tribune) quotes Marriuci as saying it was a TD. Harrington calls the call "a Christmas gift." And the writer said no one in the Detroit locker room tought otherwise, except to say that "it's the official's call."

Pretty unusual in the cutthroat world of professional sports...