Josh Cribbs non muff call in Colts - Broncos game

[Ring 6]

I just read the Bedard article on MMQB and the comparison of possession between the 2 plays had me confused as well. Not to take Bedard's word as fact but this quote speaks to possession in that according to him, there is no difference in defining the lack of possession of a catch of a punt (muff) and an incomplete pass:

"The Cribbs play is a punt, but it’s essentially officiated the same way as a pass reception (lack of possession would be a muff). It sure didn’t look like Cribbs had time to perform a football act, or take a breath, before Bolden drilled Cribbs. Oh, but he did. Having your forward progress stopped is a football act, according to FootballZebras on Twitter. And since Cribbs was in the process of being tackled, he was down by contact. Let’s not even get into the hypothetical of what might have happened had Cribbs jumped for the ball like Bryant."

There is a tremendous difference here.
Bryant went to the ground while making the catch. That is why it wasn't a catch, because going to the ground was part of the catch, so he needed to maintain possession.
Cribbs was KNOCKED to the ground and had made the catch prior to that. Cribbs had the ball in an upright position with both feet planted (ever so briefly). Bryant NEEDED to go to the ground to make the catch, so therefore needed to maintain possession until the act of the catch, which included falling to the ground was complete.

 

[SacPete1]

Cribbs was KNOCKED to the ground and had made the catch prior to that. Cribbs had the ball in an upright position with both feet planted (ever so briefly)

So if a receiver trying to make a catch is hit just as he is making the catch, maintains possession, then goes to the ground and loses possession in your view this would be a catch?

 

[Ring 6]

So if a receiver trying to make a catch is hit just as he is making the catch, maintains possession, then goes to the ground and loses possession in your view this would be a catch?

If he catches the ball, both feet hit the ground and then he is tackled and the ball comes out, it is either down by contact or a fumble depending on whether he was down or the ball out first.
The difference is that he completes the catch when he has possession and 2 feet down. When you are going to the ground the dive/fall/sprawl is essentially a part of the catch. The hit by a defender is not.
In this case Cribbs had the ball before he was hit.

 

[SacPete1]

The difference is that he completes the catch when he has possession and 2 feet down. When you are going to the ground the dive/fall/sprawl is essentially a part of the catch. The hit by a defender is not

You are distinguishing possession after contact with the ground based on whether there was contact or not prior to hitting the ground but after the initial catch.

This is not correct. Below is the actual NFL wording:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Notice the with or without contact clause. The contact is irrelevant.

 

[Ring 6]

You are distinguishing possession after contact with the ground based on whether there was contact or not prior to hitting the ground but after the initial catch.

This is not correct. Below is the actual NFL wording:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Notice the with or without contact clause. The contact is irrelevant.

You are misinterpreting this.
Cribbs completed the catch before being knocked to the ground. The catch was made an instant before contact.
He did not go to the ground in the act of making the catch, he went to the ground AFTER making the catch.

I am distinguish making a catch THEN being tackled with making a catch while going to the ground.
Had Bryant made the catch, hit 2 feet in bounds, while standing, then gone to the ground as the result of a hit AFTER gaining possession, then it would be a catch,

 

[SacPete1]

You are misinterpreting this.
Cribbs completed the catch before being knocked to the ground. The catch was made an instant before contact.
He did not go to the ground in the act of making the catch, he went to the ground AFTER making the catch.

I am distinguish making a catch THEN being tackled with making a catch while going to the ground.
Had Bryant made the catch, hit 2 feet in bounds, while standing, then gone to the ground as the result of a hit AFTER gaining possession, then it would be a catch,

I don't think I am Andy. But let's leave the Cribbs play out of it for second, the fact remains that a hit by defender as a receiver is in the process of catching the ball is irrelevant if that receiver loses posession after he hits the ground.

Cribbs was hit almost the at the same time the ball arrived (I just looked at the replay again) and then he went to the ground immediately (no stumble or a few steps). Having 2 hands on the ball with 2 feet down does not constitute possession. At that point he is "in the act of making a catch" and the process is not complete.

Anyway, I get the feeling we won't agree on this one so let's just agree to disagree.

Besides, I like reading your views on the Pats far more so I'll look forward to reading your posts this week.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think I am Andy. But let's leave the Cribbs play out of it for second, the fact remains that a hit by defender as a receiver is in the process of catching the ball is irrelevant if that receiver loses posession after he hits the ground.

Cribbs was hit almost the at the same time the ball arrived (I just looked at the replay again) and then he went to the ground immediately (no stumble or a few steps). Having 2 hands on the ball with 2 feet down does not constitute possession. At that point he is "in the act of making a catch" and the process is not complete.

Anyway, I get the feeling we won't agree on this one so let's just agree to disagree.

Besides, I like reading your views on the Pats far more so I'll look forward to reading your posts this week.

OK, I think you need to consider the distinction of the fall being part of or after the catch.

 

[Oswlek]

it doesn't matter because the call should have been running into the return man that called a fair catch. saying he was blocked into him was a bs call.

This was my thought as well. The replay conclusively proved that the defender wasn't blocked into him, so the refs just found a back door way of reversing that call via possession overturn.

 

[The Brandon Five]

You are distinguishing possession after contact with the ground based on whether there was contact or not prior to hitting the ground but after the initial catch.

This is not correct. Below is the actual NFL wording:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Notice the with or without contact clause. The contact is irrelevant.

You are misinterpreting this.
Cribbs completed the catch before being knocked to the ground. The catch was made an instant before contact.
He did not go to the ground in the act of making the catch, he went to the ground AFTER making the catch.

I am distinguish making a catch THEN being tackled with making a catch while going to the ground.
Had Bryant made the catch, hit 2 feet in bounds, while standing, then gone to the ground as the result of a hit AFTER gaining possession, then it would be a catch,

He did hit two feet in bounds.

 

[Ring 6]

He did hit two feet in bounds.

Yes, but he was going to the ground. My example was get 2 feet in, STANDING UP, THEN get tackled.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Yes, but he was going to the ground. My example was get 2 feet in, STANDING UP, THEN get tackled.

So all receivers are required to stand still in order for it to be ruled a catch? What about a receiver who catches the ball on the run? Is he "standing"?

 

[Ring 6]

So all receivers are required to stand still in order for it to be ruled a catch? What about a receiver who catches the ball on the run? Is he "standing"?

come on.

 

[The Brandon Five]

come on.

There is a grey line here. It's fine if you think there isn't. That doesn't mean others don't see one.

 

[Ring 6]

There is a grey line here. It's fine if you think there isn't. That doesn't mean others don't see one.

You think the line is that you have to stand still after catching the pass?

 

[The Brandon Five]

You think the line is that you have to stand still after catching the pass?

No, I think the line is whether someone is actually "falling" when they take two steps. He wasn't flying through the air to the goal line.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I think the line is whether someone is actually "falling" when they take two steps. He wasn't flying through the air to the goal line.

There is always judgment involved, you can't draw a line that doesn't require an official to judge.
In this case its pretty obvious that he was going to the ground while making the catch. I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
The distinction I was drawing when you jumped in was that Bryant's own momentum took him to the ground, while Cribbs was not going to the ground until hit by a defender.

 

[goheels22002]

Cribbs lost consciousness before he lost the ball. Wasn't it Deion Branch who was knocked out on the sideline but retained possession of the ball several years ago?

 

[Ring 6]

Cribbs lost consciousness before he lost the ball. Wasn't it Deion Branch who was knocked out on the sideline but retained possession of the ball several years ago?

David Patten. Knocked out cold, but one body part was touching the ball and another touching out of bounds.

 

[NSPF]

The day I became a Patriot fan was the result of what I felt was a terrible call - roughing the passer against Ken Stabler in 1976. I thought it was a terrible call and still do but there was a fraction of the analysis there would be today.

True, a lot of the all-time worst calls have been completely forgotten and were never talked about, especially since they were before the days of Game Rewind. My worst all-time call is a roughing the passer called against Vince Wilfork, where he was lying motionless on the ground and the quarterback backpedaled a few steps and tripped over his head. They called roughing the passer, but I don't think I heard a word about that call. December 10th, 2006 against the Dolphins.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Cribbs lost consciousness before he lost the ball. Wasn't it Deion Branch who was knocked out on the sideline but retained possession of the ball several years ago?

So didn't Stevan Ridley, but that didn't turn out the same way for some reason.