ESPN: Falcons Beat Themselves

[TruthSeeker]

Saw the exact same "catch" overturned in a game last week. I think that had an excellent chance to be called incomplete. In fact, in the game I saw, the overturn was huge because it was called a fumble on the field. I believe it was last week's Broncos game.

Basically, even if you turn upfield, it is NOT a catch until you control the ball and get two feet down. Jones's catch didn't meet the criteria.

What I'm saying is that the threshold is not JUST a football move (which I believe Jones made) but it is also two feet and possession, and on that count, it wasn't a catch.

I saw two feet down and then a step (third foot) along with the turning upfield. That should not have been overturned (I'd hold out for about a 5% chance of an overturn on that.)

If they'd ruled it incomplete, I'd have said that the replay was conclusive enough to overturn it to a catch and fumble.

 

[PatsDeb]

I saw two feet down and then a step (third foot) along with the turning upfield. That should not have been overturned (I'd hold out for about a 5% chance of an overturn on that.)

If they'd ruled it incomplete, I'd have said that the replay was conclusive enough to overturn it to a catch and fumble.

I have to agree. I thought there was no way that BB was going to win that challenge (particularly with the way things were going all night anyway) and that the failure of the review equipment benefited us (ironically).

 

[Ivan]

ESPN is still around? I thought they went the way of Commodore Computers and the 10 pound cellphone?

 

[upstater1]

I saw two feet down and then a step (third foot) along with the turning upfield. That should not have been overturned (I'd hold out for about a 5% chance of an overturn on that.)

If they'd ruled it incomplete, I'd have said that the replay was conclusive enough to overturn it to a catch and fumble.

He didn't have it controlled for more than 1 foot. It came loose as he was getting the second foot down. He bobbled it on the first foot, got control of it before the second, lost it as he was putting 3rd foot down. Saw the same play overturned just last week.

 

[upstater1]

Just remembered, Edelman's fumble against the Jets. Ruled incomplete.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Jones secured the ball, got both feet to the ground, and turned upfield. That's why he was correctly ruled to have caught and fumbled the ball, while in Edelman's case vs. the Jets it was incomplete. I think that it was the right call on the field, but the fact that the replay wasn't working was still pretty ridiculous.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That replay was not working helped us, as it would not have been overturned and we would have lost a time out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TYC8EfE2n8

Refs called it bad on both sides last night (e.g., that unsportsmanlike penalty with the Thompkins tackle was ridiculous).

Just sayin, you sound a bit paranoid

I agree that it wouldn't have been overturned, and shouldn't have been: it was correctly called as a fumble.

Having said that, the penalty on the Thompkins hit gets called 9 times out of 10, and is the right call under the current rules. It was a textbook example of launching at a defenseless receiver. We can debate whether or not it's a good rule, but independently of that, it was the right call with the current rules and the one that is almost always made in that situation.

 

[DaBruinz]

I thought the broken review equipment saved us a time out. Not to ruin a good conspiracy theory, but that was not a great challenge. It was a catch.

No, it wasn't, by the definition of the NFL. You have to have full control AND make a football move (usually considered two steps after the catch). Jones only took 1 step before he got drilled and the ball wasn't fully secure at the time. My DVR showed me that..

 

[SVN]

if you might want to listen to what dilfer said

On NFL Week 4: 9/30 - ESPN at the 8min mark.

 

[upstater1]

The Youtube clip linked here shows the ball up against his chest pad unsecure. Then one foot down, ball comes loose simultaneous with the foot coming down.

 

[Ivan]

I'll admit, I had a good buzz on at the time but as i watched the end of that game I couldn't escape the feeling that someone at Buffalo Wild Wings was screwing with us.

 

[neuronet]

Having said that, the penalty on the Thompkins hit gets called 9 times out of 10, and is the right call under the current rules. It was a textbook example of launching at a defenseless receiver. We can debate whether or not it's a good rule, but independently of that, it was the right call with the current rules and the one that is almost always made in that situation.

But isn't it that you cannot launch, and go for head/neck? Aren't you allowed to hit them as the ball reaches them, as long as it is below the neck? Maybe a good question for the stupid football questions thread...

 

[SB39]

Pherein...you are an unbiased outsider...ever seen or heard that one before?? replay NOT working...sorry...can't review possible game ending play....wait!!!..Falcons get the onside kick...replay working now!!"..

ever see that one Pherein??? I haven't...and I'm an NFL addict

I seen it in college but I can't say I've ever seen that one at the professional level since they brought replay back over a decade ago under the current format.

 

[doesntmatter1]

All I have to say is if that fumble was inbounds and we recovered; then it would have been ruled incomplete.

Maybe the falcons did beat themselves. Only dummies throw points away by not kicking field goals nor did they try to run on a defense without wilfork.

 

[ausbacker]

All I have to say is if that fumble was inbounds and we recovered; then it would have been ruled incomplete.

Maybe the falcons did beat themselves. Only dummies throw points away by not kicking field goals nor did they try to run on a defense without wilfork.

Even if they Falcons had taken the points, they still would have needed a Touchdown to win the game (after all the wonderful breaks the officials personally handed them).

 

[pherein]

That replay was not working helped us, as it would not have been overturned and we would have lost a time out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TYC8EfE2n8

Refs called it bad on both sides last night (e.g., that unsportsmanlike penalty with the Thompkins tackle was ridiculous).

Just sayin, you sound a bit paranoid

refs were pretty bad. White pushed off 3x I saw. Joker is right, Ive never seen an excuse like that. I mean the replay machine broke,lol. Um.. just watch the TV or walk to the booth. Seemed pretty lame.

 

[BradyFTW!]

But isn't it that you cannot launch, and go for head/neck? Aren't you allowed to hit them as the ball reaches them, as long as it is below the neck? Maybe a good question for the stupid football questions thread...

I just double-checked to be sure, and it doesn't have to be. From Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary Roughness) of the Player Conduct portion of the rulebook:

There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:
.....
(j) if a player illegally launches into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body.

Note: This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9.​

Not a dumb question at all - IIRC, this rule was changed pretty recently.

 

[supafly]

We were up 30-13 with about 6 minutes left in the game, so I don't think that ATL "beat themselves" at all. Both the defense and offense came to play last night, and they executed pretty well aside from those ridiculously stupid illegal motion/formation penalties that occurred a few times.

The series of events that occurred in the last 5 min of the game set up the perfect storm for Atlanta to make it one hell of a game again, but the odds of all of that stuff happening are not very good. They included:

(1)--the replay machine suddenly not working

(2)--two horrible calls in a row where they claimed that we did not pick up the first down, which then led to (3) Brady fumbling the snap on 4th down to turn over the possession

(4)--the Falcons recovering the onside kick, with a historical 15% average of doing so

(5)--the heave and completion downfield to Jones, where McCourty seemed to have perfect coverage

If all of these things don't occur all at once, we'd have won by at least 2 scores, with a minimum of 30-20, so no---the Falcons did not beat themselves. The Patriots came to play down in a tough environment and handed them their first back to back loss since 2009, along with another loss to Ryan's 34-5 home record to boot. That was not easy, especially after losing several key players such as Wilfork, Bolden, Dobson, Kelly, and Dennard at one point or another.

The article is borderline stupid in my opinion, and does not give credit where it is deserved.

 

[Ozymandias]

We were up 30-13 with about 6 minutes left in the game, so I don't think that ATL "beat themselves" at all.

This is the part that blows their idiotic argument out the water.

The Falcons were getting dominated and were basically run out of their own building. The Patriots obviously took their foot of the gas pedal. While that's never an advisable way to close out a game, the Falcons were basically embarrassed and physically pummelled by a vastly superior team. The scoreboard doesn't even begin to accurately depict the sizeable gap between the two teams

The Falcons lost simply because they're not very good. There's no beating themselves involved here, they just got flat-out beat.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

No, it wasn't, by the definition of the NFL. You have to have full control AND make a football move (usually considered two steps after the catch). Jones only took 1 step before he got drilled and the ball wasn't fully secure at the time. My DVR showed me that..

1) The words "football move" are not in the rulebook.

2) The correct term is an "act common to the game".

3) Contrary to popular belief, you most definitely need not perform an act common to the game to have a catch, making the common use of "football move" unfortunate. You need not "move" at all. You only need to control the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game, whether or not you do it. No lie. The rules specifically say no act common to the game is required. Only enough time to have made one.

4) There is no two step rule. There is no one step rule. If you have the ball in your hands and two feet or one body part in bounds, any attempted advancement of the ball - whether by stepping, reaching, turning, or leaning, is enough. (As is a list of other stuff you might do with a football.)

The only basis on which I can see a reversal would have been a determination that he did not get two feet in bounds because there was a juggle. The ball was moving a little, but I didn't see a juggle.

The rule interpretation regarding maintenance of the catch through the ground obviously didn't apply here.