Rams vs 49ers

[Hasselbeck]

Just for fun, and a 100 posts and two days after the fact, we may as well have the gif.

It's hard for me to see any argument that this is a catch. Ball touches ground; ball moves. Not a catch. EZ. It honestly doesn't seem close to me, at least with this look. Real time, on the field is different, sure. But "upon further review"? It seems silly to even argue, honestly.

And trying to lawyer your way to a TD with, "Well, since they *ruled* it a catch, it has to be *ruled* a touchdown."? That's totally unbecoming, since it wasn't a catch in the first place.

Yep. Was never a catch to begin with. But for semantics sake, apparently they determined when he had possession of the ball.. he was down inside the 1. Which is what was ruled originally on the field.

If anything.. the Niners caught a break on this replay, because he shouldn't have had the catch to begin with.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Just for fun, and a 100 posts and two days after the fact, we may as well have the gif.

It's hard for me to see any argument that this is a catch. Ball touches ground; ball moves. Not a catch. EZ. It honestly doesn't seem close to me, at least with this look. Real time, on the field is different, sure. But "upon further review"? It seems silly to even argue, honestly.

And trying to lawyer your way to a TD with, "Well, since they *ruled* it a catch, it has to be *ruled* a touchdown."? That's totally unbecoming, since it wasn't a catch in the first place.

Yep. Was never a catch to begin with. But for semantics sake, apparently they determined when he had possession of the ball.. he was down inside the 1. Which is what was ruled originally on the field.

If anything.. the Niners caught a break on this replay, because he shouldn't have had the catch to begin with.

Ya my dad didnt know what actually happened until we watched that catch on replay...he thought it was just an incomplete and I told him they actually ruled it a catch even though the ball looked to clearly hit the ground. I dont see how the 49ers got screwed at all

 

[HawkWow]

Agreed. The NFL has technology that would make NASA blush, but depend on the eyes of an exhausted old guy standing over on the sideline. I could be wrong but I felt Kap regained possession before fumbling again after he was down.

If I'm elected "Inconclusive" will be another way of saying "do-over". Not we have 6 cameras that couldn't determine the outcome of the event, so we are just going with the snap judgment of that guy standing nervously over there fiddling with a rubber band that he depends on to to count from 1 to 4.

And get some goal line cams for crying out loud. Replay is a marvelous tool and should be used to it's fullest, imo. I don't care about "it slows the game down". Slows the game down for who? The networks? The casual observer? Let's get it right and if we can't, let's do it over. Not a perfect answer to the problem, but change is necessary, regardless, imo.

:lol:

So let me get this straight... you would rather have a rule in place, that basically puts a mulligan into play when replay is "inconclusive" .. than to just decide that you can't really decipher one way or the other if the proper call was made and to leave it as called?

How in the world does that solve anything? Kaep fumbled, clear as day... the Rams recovered... clear as day. Just because there isn't a camera angle that breaks down if he had possession for a split second as it crossed the goal-line .. doesn't mean the Rams should be punished for Kaep's mistake.

Here's an easy way to fix this problem for the 49ers and for all teams in the NFL:

Don't fumble the ball on the one foot line.

It's fun to blame the refs for the loss, but just like our ending to the Rams game.. it should have never been in their hands to begin with.

So again it's the masochistic Hass, sniffing around, tying to find something I may say, even if said in humor to pounce upon. Look Hass, you nor your group think homies are expected to know what I know about this or any other sport. So give it a rest. I will no longer cater to your perverse desire for humiliation.

 

[NINEster]

Just for fun, and a 100 posts and two days after the fact, we may as well have the gif.

It's hard for me to see any argument that this is a catch. Ball touches ground; ball moves. Not a catch. EZ. It honestly doesn't seem close to me, at least with this look. Real time, on the field is different, sure. But "upon further review"? It seems silly to even argue, honestly.

And trying to lawyer your way to a TD with, "Well, since they *ruled* it a catch, it has to be *ruled* a touchdown."? That's totally unbecoming, since it wasn't a catch in the first place.

Yep. Was never a catch to begin with. But for semantics sake, apparently they determined when he had possession of the ball.. he was down inside the 1. Which is what was ruled originally on the field.

If anything.. the Niners caught a break on this replay, because he shouldn't have had the catch to begin with.

Ya my dad didnt know what actually happened until we watched that catch on replay...he thought it was just an incomplete and I told him they actually ruled it a catch even though the ball looked to clearly hit the ground. I dont see how the 49ers got screwed at all

The 49ers could have benefitted from an incompletion.

More time on the clock, a little further out. This wasn't a 30 yard completion to the 1 yard line being debated but an 8 yard throw.

I wouldn't put the game on Crabtree's catch/non-catch.

What I could put it on was a ball that could have been better thrown for a surefire TD rendering a referee irrelevant as well as any QB sneak.

 

[Ramfan128]

Yea....after having time to process this more, this game was just strange.

If we get the fumble return for a TD, events following it may have changed. While I realize that, I also believe that the Rams win the game without the drama if we have that TD.

But onto the what the Niners did.....the Refs didn't do anything wrong at the end of that game. The Crabtree catch couldn't be overturned, and once Kap fumbled, that couldn't be overturned either. Think of it like this....what would have happened if replay didn't exist?? They'd still have ruled it a fumble, and the game would have been over.

Those last two plays are on Kap. Bad throw that took Crabs out of the end zone, and then you cannot lose the ball in that situation. Doesn't matter if you cross the goal line or not....there is 5000 lbs of human being in that pile that the refs are trying to sift through to see a little football.

The Niners were lucky to be in the game, and we were lucky to win it.

I cannot believe that at 6'4" he didn't just do the Drew Brees and jump immediately and stick the ball out over the goal line. Game over. I thought for sure that's what he was going to do.

 

[Ramfan128]

The Rams are enjoying their spoiler role this year. Please do us all a favor and beat the Cardinals.

If that happens....things will get interesting.

Admittedly, the Rams have not played up to their potential this year. But, the only sub .500 teams we have played are Minnesota and TB. Throwing the Minnesota game out (because it was week 1 and Shaun Hill started the game), we haven't played NEARLY as poorly as some think.

If we can beat AZ (unlikely, but they don't scare me as much as SF), and then somehow split with Denver and San Diego (SD suddenly doesn't look so great), we would be 5-6 coming into the easy stretch of our schedule.

The 4 games leading up to week 17 are all winnable (yes, I am including AZ at home in that). So while it seems unlikely right now, I could actually see the Niners and Rams at 8-7, Seahawks at 9-6 going into week 17.

I have no illusions about winning in Seattle.....it aint happening. But it would be pretty awesome to have a play-and-your-in game in week 17 for the final wild card spot.......for this to happen we would also need the Cowboys to finish 8-8 again.....but after losing at home the last two weeks that doesn't seem all that insane either.

None of this is particularly likely, but the possibility of it will keep me excited for a few weeks.

 

[Marvin49]

Yea....after having time to process this more, this game was just strange.

If we get the fumble return for a TD, events following it may have changed. While I realize that, I also believe that the Rams win the game without the drama if we have that TD.

But onto the what the Niners did.....the Refs didn't do anything wrong at the end of that game. The Crabtree catch couldn't be overturned, and once Kap fumbled, that couldn't be overturned either. Think of it like this....what would have happened if replay didn't exist?? They'd still have ruled it a fumble, and the game would have been over.

Those last two plays are on Kap. Bad throw that took Crabs out of the end zone, and then you cannot lose the ball in that situation. Doesn't matter if you cross the goal line or not....there is 5000 lbs of human being in that pile that the refs are trying to sift through to see a little football.

The Niners were lucky to be in the game, and we were lucky to win it.

I cannot believe that at 6'4" he didn't just do the Drew Brees and jump immediately and stick the ball out over the goal line. Game over. I thought for sure that's what he was going to do.

He fumbled the snap (rookie center, first game ever) so he never really had good control to push it forward.

As for the comments about replay, I largely agree.

I'm still not sure on the Crabtree catch because I need to read the rule. I don't think the ball moving should make a difference because he never lost control. In my mind, its a catch where he initially caught the ball...but again, I'd have to read the specifics of the rule.

On the Kap play, I think he scored...but there was no replay evidence strong enough to overturn the initial call...

...and that's kinda the problem. My issue is the initial call. Its very powerful because once that call is made it takes ALOT to overturn. I don't think they saw the fumble because they reacted so slowly, so how could they have ruled it a fumble to begin with?

Doesn't matter now. Game over. It is what it is...all I can say is that crew is TERRIBLE. Bad calls both ways and poor explanations.

I'll say this....if Kap did score there at the end and the Niners won the game, they'd have gotten away with one. They didn't deserve to win. The rams scored 10 of their 13 points on Niner mistakes (bad punt, fumble on a sack, and blown coverage on TD) but the Rams took advantage of those mistakes (and in the case of the fumble, CAUSED the mistake).

Niners O-Line had their worst game in years. Rams dominated up front. Hard to win a game when your QB spend a good portion of the day staring at the sky.

 

[rideaducati]

This is like watching my two creepy uncles fight (one of which dates 16yo's...regardless of sex...and the other's a swinger).

On the next episode of Jerry Springer...

 

[bigskydoc]

I'm still not sure on the Crabtree catch because I need to read the rule. I don't think the ball moving should make a difference because he never lost control. In my mind, its a catch where he initially caught the ball...but again, I'd have to read the specifics of the rule.

If the ball is moving, then the player does not have control of it.

He has to complete the process of the catch before it is a catch. When his arm hits the ground, the ball moves so he has not completed the process of the catch at that point. The ball was already out of the end zone when his elbow touched the ground and it moved. He does not complete the process of the catch until he rolls over, his left butt cheek hits the ground, and he maintains control going out of bounds. You could make a legitimate argument for the ball being placed either where it was when it stopped moving and his left elbow was down, or where it was when he rolled over and his left butt cheek touched the field (depending on where you want to say that control was established). Either way, the ball is not in the end zone when he establishes control and completes the process.

We can debate whether he used the ground to control the ball or not (The ball touches the ground but does not move so it could go either way). Personally, I think he did and it is an incomplete pass, but I can see how there is insufficient evidence to over-rule the call on the field of a completed pass as the ball does not move when it touches the ground, only prior to this when his arm hits the ground.

I think that it was an amazingly good call by the judge who was standing right there looking at it.

The Kaep fumble is another tough one. He clearly regains control after the muffed exchange. He then moves forward, but the ball is kicked loose by Iupati. I can't see any clear evidence of where the nose of the football is when it starts to move or see any clear evidence that Kaep regains control a second time before the ball comes out in the end zone.

- bsd

 

[Marvin49]

I'm still not sure on the Crabtree catch because I need to read the rule. I don't think the ball moving should make a difference because he never lost control. In my mind, its a catch where he initially caught the ball...but again, I'd have to read the specifics of the rule.

If the ball is moving, then the player does not have control of it.

He has to complete the process of the catch before it is a catch. When his arm hits the ground, the ball moves so he has not completed the process of the catch at that point. The ball was already out of the end zone when his elbow touched the ground and it moved. He does not complete the process of the catch until he rolls over, his left butt cheek hits the ground, and he maintains control going out of bounds. You could make a legitimate argument for the ball being placed either where it was when it stopped moving and his left elbow was down, or where it was when he rolled over and his left butt cheek touched the field (depending on where you want to say that control was established). Either way, the ball is not in the end zone when he establishes control and completes the process.

We can debate whether he used the ground to control the ball or not (The ball touches the ground but does not move so it could go either way). Personally, I think he did and it is an incomplete pass, but I can see how there is insufficient evidence to over-rule the call on the field of a completed pass as the ball does not move when it touches the ground, only prior to this when his arm hits the ground.

I think that it was an amazingly good call by the judge who was standing right there looking at it.

The Kaep fumble is another tough one. He clearly regains control after the muffed exchange. He then moves forward, but the ball is kicked loose by Iupati. I can't see any clear evidence of where the nose of the football is when it starts to move or see any clear evidence that Kaep regains control a second time before the ball comes out in the end zone.

- bsd

See...now that bolded part is kinda my problem.

Of course the ball moved.

His arm hit the ground forcing the ball to move in the other, but I don't think he ever lost control of the ball.

As I said...doesn't really matter. Its over.

 

[chris98251]

I'm still not sure on the Crabtree catch because I need to read the rule. I don't think the ball moving should make a difference because he never lost control. In my mind, its a catch where he initially caught the ball...but again, I'd have to read the specifics of the rule.

If the ball is moving, then the player does not have control of it.

He has to complete the process of the catch before it is a catch. When his arm hits the ground, the ball moves so he has not completed the process of the catch at that point. The ball was already out of the end zone when his elbow touched the ground and it moved. He does not complete the process of the catch until he rolls over, his left butt cheek hits the ground, and he maintains control going out of bounds. You could make a legitimate argument for the ball being placed either where it was when it stopped moving and his left elbow was down, or where it was when he rolled over and his left butt cheek touched the field (depending on where you want to say that control was established). Either way, the ball is not in the end zone when he establishes control and completes the process.

We can debate whether he used the ground to control the ball or not (The ball touches the ground but does not move so it could go either way). Personally, I think he did and it is an incomplete pass, but I can see how there is insufficient evidence to over-rule the call on the field of a completed pass as the ball does not move when it touches the ground, only prior to this when his arm hits the ground.

I think that it was an amazingly good call by the judge who was standing right there looking at it.

The Kaep fumble is another tough one. He clearly regains control after the muffed exchange. He then moves forward, but the ball is kicked loose by Iupati. I can't see any clear evidence of where the nose of the football is when it starts to move or see any clear evidence that Kaep regains control a second time before the ball comes out in the end zone.

- bsd

See...now that bolded part is kinda my problem.

Of course the ball moved.

His arm hit the ground forcing the ball to move in the other, but I don't think he ever lost control of the ball.

As I said...doesn't really matter. Its over.

The ball was moving the whole time, the tip it the ground and he rolled meaning it was incomplete since he had not secured it before it touched the ground. Why when you have a scoop catch your hands must be under the ball so it doesn't hit the ground and you secure it against the body or pull it up to the body or grasp it in your hands.