Refs blow call by overturning White's reception.

[Bella*chick]

I definitely didn't think anything touched anywhere and we got hosed on that call. But overall, I'm just glad the officiating wasn't worse.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The freeze frames CLEARLY showed his foot/toe was INBOUNDS!!! Over and over again, that clown Collinsworth is showing us the zoomed in frame and stating that his toe is on the boundary line. But it wasn't! Am I the only one who was wondering if Collinsworth and the refs took the same LSD before the game?

 

[1960Pats]

Yeah I didn't get why that was overturned either. I've seen many times a receiver catch a ball with both toes in bounds then when he falls over the heels are out of bounds and its considered a catch. How was this any different?

It was a Patriots player catching the ball?

I was just glad they didn't call OPI on the Gronk TD.

 

[1960Pats]

How could you think it wasn't roughing the passer when the ball had been gone for nearly a complete second before Watt hit Brady from the backside? That was one of the correct calls made last night. In fact, the ball is gone before Watt launches himself at Brady..

Exactly. He was clearly looking at Brady and saw that the ball was long gone. And that's the type of dirty play that Watt commits in every game, as I commented on in another thread here. I was just glad that he didn't go low and take out Brady's knee, like he did last year to another QB.

 

[neuronet]

The freeze frames CLEARLY showed his foot/toe was INBOUNDS!!! Over and over again, that clown Collinsworth is showing us the zoomed in frame and stating that his toe is on the boundary line. But it wasn't! Am I the only one who was wondering if Collinsworth and the refs took the same LSD before the game?

If your toe touches inbounds, and then your heel comes down out of bounds, it is not a completion. This is a well-known corner case that is weird, but that's how the NFL rules. That's why a single freeze frame of an inbounds toe touching the ground doesn't determine whether it was a completion. The refs obviously thought they saw his heel come down after the toe. (This is exactly what Al and Chris said, as they are familiar with this corner case).

This has been discussed a lot over the years. Unfortunately, it is part of the NFL casebook which is not publicly available:

• In the NFL, a toe is a foot but a heel isn’t
• Rules: Why is dragging a toe considered in, but toe in, then heel out considered out?
• Schiano got an explanation of the "heel" rule

The latter is a post in which some Bucanneers fans discuss the same call. A nice, pithy summary of the rule from one of their posters there: "You never need to get your heels down, but if the heels come down, they have to come down in bounds."

 

[1960Pats]

I definitely didn't think anything touched anywhere and we got hosed on that call. But overall, I'm just glad the officiating wasn't worse.

Sadly, that is the point we have reached while viewing these games, even the games not involving the Pats. It's gotten to the point now that even when the replay shows the correct call they still don't make it. It has taken a lot of the enjoyment out of watching games.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

If your toe touches inbounds, and then your heel comes down out of bounds, it is not a completion. This is a well-known corner case that is weird, but that's how the NFL rules. That's why a single freeze frame of an inbounds toe touching the ground is not enough to establish it: they obviously thought they saw his heel come down after the toe. (This is exactly what Al and Chris said, as they are familiar with this corner case).

This has been discussed a lot over the years, it is part of the NFL casebook which is not publicly available:
In the NFL, a toe is a foot but a heel isn’t
Rules: Why is dragging a toe considered in, but toe in, then heel out considered out? • /r/nfl

Some Bucanneers fans complaining about a similar call, and eventually coming to realize it was the right call:
Schiano got an explanation of the "heel" rule

A nice, pithy summary of the rule from one of their posts: "You never need to get your heels down, but if the heels come down, they have to come down in bounds."

Great post! Thanks for clarifying this rule.

 

[Kjmass1]

A ref on the radio was explaining that you can't just put your toe down. You need to "deliberately" put it down not just a natural movement (think dragging toe in endzone). The rules are insane. Switch to college 1 foot rule or timed threshold.

 

[neuronet]

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I suppose though we should keep in mind we did get lucky on the Gronk TD though.

I'll bet you those officials will be downgraded on that play for not calling OPI there.

 

[Krepoort]

Overall, I feel like this was a "better" officiated game for us. Given the point of emphasis memo the refs have been given (i.e. for questionable calls, side against the Patriots) I was expecting more flags.

I expected a personal foul on the Collins suplex. I think it was a clean hard football play and definitely not a foul. More often than not you'll see the defender lose his grip in that type of situation and the runner breaks free. Collins just happened to have perfect leverage (and he's a freak) to pull it off. It probably even hurt less than a typical tackle. You can see the runner pop right up looking for a flag.

I thought Gronk was going to get an OPI on the TD catch for pushing the helmet of the defender. Maybe the refs decided to reel it back because of all the media coverage. Maybe they decided to give him a break since he was just injured. Either way, good no-call. Not something we're expected to get.

Hoyer was hit in the head on the Nink sack by the guy coming up the middle (maybe Branch?). Wasn't intentional as Hoyer was being compressed after Nink hit him, but hit on the head nonetheless. I could be wrong, but I thought those were automatic calls. Might've lucked out on that one.

The Amendola incompletion looked fairly clear on one replay that the ball hit the ground first. They kept replaying the inconclusive ones. I'm ok with that call.

The White incompletion looked like ultimately the right call, but done incorrectly. I don't think the reception should've been overturned since there wasn't conclusive evidence, but it seemed like his heel did touch the sideline. I didn't read up on the toe/heel vs toe/drag but my understanding is toe/heel is a part of the continuation of a catch. I'm ok that call as well.

The incompletion by the Texans' receiver towards the end of the 3rd (I think) was 50/50 for me. Using my gut logic in how refs are calling receptions, I feel he was a split second away from establishing possession but then started falling down, which then extended need to retain control to the ground. I didn't go back to watch it so I'm still unsure what the correct call is, but I'm glad we had another one go our way.

 

[Wheelman]

Also, I do not know how many more games I can listen to Chris Collinsworth. He is usually wrong and his contempt for the Patriots is insufferable.

I check out other forums sometimes. Every fan base says the same exact thing about Collinsworth when talking about their fanbase or ballwashing the opposing team.

 

[varjao]

A ref on the radio was explaining that you can't just put your toe down. You need to "deliberately" put it down not just a natural movement (think dragging toe in endzone). The rules are insane. Switch to college 1 foot rule or timed threshold.

I agree, this 2 feet rule is unnecessary and awful, the players need to do a weird body move against their natural movement in a play to touch the second foot, I don't know how no one broke a toe or ankle or hit the chin in the ground in full force yet.

Considering the rules are being altered totally pro offense I think it would be in the NFL interest. What characterizes a catch? I think this is more important than the 2nd foot. If a player makes the catch in the field with one foot that's more of a catch for me than a player catching the ball already out of bounds but dragging his feet in the limit of the line.

 

[bbobbo]

I don't recall if it was in the 3rd or 4th quarter, I'll have to check tonight on the game pass since the gamecasts I'm checking right now won't have this information because it wasn't reversed, it was ruled as an incomplete pass right after the Pats player recovered the ball.

That was the time it happened in the game thread

OFFICIAL: Patriots at Texans Game Thread | Page 71 | New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

the play you referenced in the thread (around 10:26PM EST, or at the 10:32 mark of the 3rd quarter) is this one. i believe they whistled the ball dead because forward progress was stopped:


here's the scrum and recovery. #71 su'a-filo ends up with the ball:


maybe you were thinking of a different play?

 

[Krepoort]

maybe you were thinking of a different play?

I believe it's a different play. It was a 20-30 yard pass I think and the ball ended up around the 10 yard line when the Patriots player jumped on it.

 

[Angelpats]

I believe it's a different play. It was a 20-30 yard pass I think and the ball ended up around the 10 yard line when the Patriots player jumped on it.

It was a pass to griffin that was called incomplete but it looked like a catch, two steps, and a fumble.

 

[DaBruinz]

If your toe touches inbounds, and then your heel comes down out of bounds, it is not a completion. This is a well-known corner case that is weird, but that's how the NFL rules. That's why a single freeze frame of an inbounds toe touching the ground doesn't determine whether it was a completion. The refs obviously thought they saw his heel come down after the toe. (This is exactly what Al and Chris said, as they are familiar with this corner case).

Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Sidney Rice 24-yard tip-toe catch - NFL Videos

Please note where Sidney Rice's heel comes down. It's OOBs.. Ruling? Catch..

This has been discussed a lot over the years. Unfortunately, it is part of the NFL casebook which is not publicly available:

• In the NFL, a toe is a foot but a heel isn’t
• Rules: Why is dragging a toe considered in, but toe in, then heel out considered out?
• Schiano got an explanation of the "heel" rule

The latter is a post in which some Bucanneers fans discuss the same call. A nice, pithy summary of the rule from one of their posters there: "You never need to get your heels down, but if the heels come down, they have to come down in bounds."

If you read the "Reddit" discussion, you'll actually see an Approved Ruling that SUPPORT the fact that the wrong call was made.

Here are the 2 rules from the NFL 2015 Rulebook that apply.

RULE 3, Section 2, Article 7, Item 1.

A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with
his hands or arms.

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3:

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled


If you are going to refer to the PFT article, they refer you to Approved Ruling 15.79 of the 2011 Casebook. However, there is no A.R. 15.79 in the 2011 Casebook. Here is the 2011 Rule Book with all the Approved Rulings in it..

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf

 

[p8ryts]

Yeah, that seems the right question. If they didn't have clear toe-->heel evidence, it should not have been overturned...Would love to get that nice close-up bruinz posted, but the full movie with the best angle so we can tell if his heel went down after his toe.

Michaels and Collinsworth were pretty clear they thought it would be overturned, but didn't really show the angles very well. At another point they seemed unsure. It was weird.

Incidentally, this was a reddit last year:
Rules: Why is dragging a toe considered in, but toe in, then heel out considered out? • /r/nfl

That was my question exactly. If he dragged the toe going out of bounds why would it not be a catch if the toe touched cleanly. I don't care what the explanation is, it makes no sense to me.

 

[varjao]

maybe you were thinking of a different play?

Nice gifs.

Yeah I thought that was the play but I remember the Patriots recovering the ball as some other user mentioned in the game thread, I thought I was mistaken but the see above another user stated the Pats recovered the ball.

It was a play very similar to that one you posted, but I don't think the receiver made this spin, he was with his back to the end zone the whole time. So maybe it's a different play indeed. I exaggerated a little bit earlier when I said he made 2 football moves, but it was a clear catch, the ball never wobbled.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Here's the Approved Ruling I've seen quoted:

A.R. 15.100 Heel/toe

Third-and-10 on A30. A2 controls a pass and gets his left foot down in bounds at the 50. As his right foot comes down, the heel hits in bounds and in the normal motion of taking a step, his toes hit out of bounds. Officials rule complete.

Ruling: Reviewable. A’s ball fourth-and-10 on A30. Incomplete. Adjust clock if wound prior to review. If any part of the foot hits out of bounds during the normal process of taking a step (no drag or delay), then the foot is out of bounds.

That directly related to what happened in the White case and if his heel did hit OOB (I agree the replay is inconclusive) it was not a catch.