The McFadden non-catch

[Sports Hernia]

Reading through this thread.... :34853_doh:

All I can say is the NFL and it's crazy constantly changing rules about a catch, and vague interpretations, and various conflicting opinions on what something is, like a "football move", has rubbed off on all of you!

They have you hook line and sinker if you are buying that wasn't a fumble.

Using the old fashion simple eye ball test, that was a fumble. He caught it, then he dropped it. Don't lawyer it all up and make it so confusing with a 100 variables when you don't have to. It was a catch, he ran with it, then he fumbled it.

It's not hard. :th2thumbs:

Thread winner right there! ^^^

 

[Popeyejones]

I argue with the rule itself. Who are we kidding, that's a catch and fumbe? However, the process of the catch was never completed, and therefore the referees got this correct. Take issue with the rule itself all you want, but the interpretation of the rule as it exists was correct.

Very much agreed with this.

This is far from the last time fans will be debating the legitimacy of the "process" rule (it happens multiple times per season :lol: ), but as the rule is written, and as is regularly complained about, that play was correctly called.

 

[253hawk]

The rule as written was never followed until the Calvin Johnson incident. For whatever reason, the definition of a catch changed that day, or at least the refs started interpreting the rule far differently than they had been calling it in the past. The most consistent thing about the NFL is its inconsistency.

 

[ZagHawk]

It was very surprising they over turned it, but it's hard for me to complain because that same officiating saved the Hawks with that double timeout thing.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

Compare this play to the Golden Tate play earlier this year where pretty much everyone in the world thought he never secured the catch before it was popped out and intercepted. They called it a catch and TD for Tate on that one.

The rule is broken, the refs don't understand it, the fans dont understand it, it's ridiculous. There are identical plays called differently every week it seems.

This was clearly a fumble to me.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

I also thought the Cassell fumble should have stood. The ball clearly shifted in his hand before the arm went forward.

 

[McGruff]

Remember the Jay Feely game when this was reviewed and upheld as a catch?

http://gfycat.com/PinkNeatDipper#

Rules have changed considerably since then. Used to be 2 feet was a catch. Now it's a "football move"

 

[Largent80]

The " football move" was clearly a fumble, not only in real time but especially in slow motion. Epic failure by the replay official.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

If it was a Hawks player, GUARANTEED they call that a fumble.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

So if it is a "football move" that says there is a fumble or not....then the tippy toe catch is invalid??? After all there is no football move on the catch.

And since we are on a rule binge, another question for the group of intellectuals here, how come a pass to the ground on a clock stopper play is not called intentional grounding? No receiver in the area, not out of the tackle box....etc. :stirthepot: :snack:

 

[rideaducati]

I also thought the Cassell fumble should have stood. The ball clearly shifted in his hand before the arm went forward.

It should have been a penalty for illegal batting.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

So if it is a "football move" that says there is a fumble or not....then the tippy toe catch is invalid??? After all there is no football move on the catch.

And since we are on a rule binge, another question for the group of intellectuals here, how come a pass to the ground on a clock stopper play is not called intentional grounding? No receiver in the area, not out of the tackle box....etc. :stirthepot: :snack:

The rule on grounding has to do with imminent pressure and avoiding a loss of yardage. It's worded so that a spike is leggal.

 

[McGruff]

So if it is a "football move" that says there is a fumble or not....then the tippy toe catch is invalid??? After all there is no football move on the catch.

Going to the ground with control of the ball is considered a football move.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

So if it is a "football move" that says there is a fumble or not....then the tippy toe catch is invalid??? After all there is no football move on the catch.

Going to the ground with control of the ball is considered a football move.

Thank you. I did not realize that was one of the considerations. Much appreciated.

 

[jammerhawk]

According to Blandino "football move now equals "firm control", whatever that means.

Nothing but more nonsense after the fact in justification of a wrong call made by the replay officials in overturning the call made on the field, situation normal another week of rubbish.

McFadden caught the ball with two hands, had it secured, and then fumbled it as he tried to shift the ball to his left hand to protect it. This all occurred over three steps while he was running.

 

[HawkGA]

I also thought the Cassell fumble should have stood. The ball clearly shifted in his hand before the arm went forward.

It should have been a penalty for illegal batting.

I'm not sure what the ruling should have been on that play, but it did get me thinking about how they determine how much control the QB has to lose of the ball before it isn't a pass anymore. Does he have to lose contact with it completely? What about if his thumb maintains contact the whole time?

 

[peppersjap]

Meh, our only TD clearly wasn't a TD. Should have been 1st and goal from about 4" out and likely a TD on the next play but non the less it was very clear Willson hadn't crossed the goal line before his but hit the ground.

Just shit officiating in general but really didn't favor a team.

Depends on the camera angle you are looking at. One shot showed him clearly across and one showed him clearly short. Without knowing the camera angle its impossible to sit and home and know which was the correct angle. I'd have had no problem if they had overturned the call, but can see why they didn't reverse the call on the field. Can't say the same about the McFadden fumble

I'm not quite sure why this play is an issue. If we don't get the TD we had the ball on the 1 inch line with Marshawn . I see zero scenarios where we don't come a way with the TD there.

 

[RichNhansom]

Meh, our only TD clearly wasn't a TD. Should have been 1st and goal from about 4" out and likely a TD on the next play but non the less it was very clear Willson hadn't crossed the goal line before his but hit the ground.

Just shit officiating in general but really didn't favor a team.

Depends on the camera angle you are looking at. One shot showed him clearly across and one showed him clearly short. Without knowing the camera angle its impossible to sit and home and know which was the correct angle. I'd have had no problem if they had overturned the call, but can see why they didn't reverse the call on the field. Can't say the same about the McFadden fumble

I'm not quite sure why this play is an issue. If we don't get the TD we had the ball on the 1 inch line with Marshawn . I see zero scenarios where we don't come a way with the TD there.

Unless they throw another slant. We do have short memories don't we.

I'd love to know what the all22 shows if anyone has the ability to review it.

 

[NINEster]

Can't say either way. I can see how it's not a fumble because when he was about to secure the ball firmly into his body he lost it.

Not a definitive terrible call, and a far more bizarre call was the Eli TD to INT against the Redskins last season.

 

[Threedee]

I call it an Incomplete Fumble. The receiver didn't, apparently, complete the process of the fumble.