Comments on: Miller catch highlights confusion regarding going-to-the-ground rule

By: pravin68

pravin68 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:26:38 +0000

I am not saying the Heath catch was 100% a catch. But at the same time, I dont find any reasonable evidence to tell that the ball actually touched the ground. His hand/body was below the ball at all times. If it were ruled otherwise, I would have a hard time overturning that too even if I feel it was more probably a catch than not.

By: urworstnitemare58

urworstnitemare58 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:10:39 +0000

I’d like to know what some of these posters saw when they say they saw the ball touch the ground! But what the heck, even with the refs and that bad call the Burg still puts up seven.

By: gairzo

gairzo — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:56:22 +0000

The rules are fine.

The interpretation of the rules stinks.

To be overturned, any play must have “indisputable visual evidence.”

The moment you have Know-it-All Nance giving Phil Simms an opinion that goes against the on field call and Simms disagrees AND they both use the same video to support their opinions that means the video evidence under examination is f#@!ing disputable.

If a ref looks at a video and has to argue with the little people on his shoulders the evidence is disputable–call stands.

The meaning of the word indisputable is crystal clear.

The refs should carry a dictionary with them.

By: ihateannouncers

ihateannouncers — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:11:36 +0000

What really surprised me is that the play was overturned. How did Hochuli have enough CLEAR AND INCONTROVERTIBLE (beyond dispute,…had to look that up) evidence to overturn that play before or after Miller hit the ground??? The roids are getting to Ed.

By: stixzidinia

stixzidinia — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 04:40:40 +0000

As a Steelers fan I’m glad it was overturned. Gives the haters one less excuse about the refs to cry about.

By: Deb

Deb — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 04:35:47 +0000

Both the Shields’ INT and the Miller catch should have been ruled completions–and would have been once upon a time. Unfortunately, we’ve just about over-examined these brilliant moments out of the game. But if the criterion is whether the ball touched the ground, closeups and slo-mos will show Miller’s never did.

By: badcallsfootball

badcallsfootball — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 04:13:49 +0000

Absolutely not. That would make a lot of awesome, clear diving catches incompletions. It would also make catches like C. Johnson’s from week 1 incompletions as well.

Do you really want some guy to catch the ball, have complete and absolute control, fall to the ground and have the tip of the ball touch the ground, and then have that be called an incompletion? I don’t.

You mean like Visanthe Shianco’s catch against the packers that was incorrectly ruled incomplete?

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/105740728.html

http://badcallsfootball.com/2010/10/30/bad-call-of-the-week-week-7/

He did exactly as you described and as the rule is written it was a catch. Yet somehow officials still blew the call, even after a replay review. Obviously the rulebook needs to be simplified if these guys cant get it right even when looking at it in slow motion from 20 different angles.

By: David Rajakovich

David Rajakovich — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:37:31 +0000

A catch is a catch. The NFL has made something very easy into something very difficult. The Miller catch/non-catch illustrates the problem…referees are now finding reasons why plays should not be ruled as catches, which is ridiculous. We need to take the technicalities out of the rule…when you try to make rules that sound logical, thorough, and detailed for something that happens in an imprecise environment, you are asking for inconsistent interpretation. The rule should return to its roots, and basically say that if a receiver controls the ball, then it is a catch. Whether it touches a blade of grass or not, should be irrelevant.

Also, the nonsense about going to the ground should be scrapped. Whether you catch the ball on the ground or in the air, the rule is the same…i.e. did you control the ball? If you catch and control the ball in the end zone, then obviously the play is over because you have controlled the ball in the end zone, which ends the play as a TD. This silliness is the number 1 priority for the rules committee (labor dispute notwithstanding) this offseason. It has led to the Polamalu interception travesty, Calvin Johnson silliness, the Miller catch/non-catch, and countless others all over the NFL.

By: badcallsfootball

badcallsfootball — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:17:53 +0000

what a bad day for NFL officials. First all the questionable calls that went the packers way, now this

check out badcallsfootball.com for analysis of todays officiating

By: scytherius

scytherius — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:30:42 +0000

Yeah this is a screwy rule.

By: jamie54

jamie54 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:31:50 +0000

Did not see the ball touch ground at all on Miller’s “non” catch. He had his hand under the whole time and regrasped it while turning but ball did not touch turf. Sure thought that was a completion.

By: flash1283

flash1283 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:31:14 +0000

Please please show LT crying on the sideline !!!

All that talking all year for NOTHEING!!!

Ha ha ha !!!!!!

To bad fat man!!

By: tk1966

tk1966 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:27:12 +0000

I know why it wasn’t a catch – the refs and the want the Steelers to win!

Wait, that doesn’t fit with the alleged conspiracy…

By: unbreakable02215

unbreakable02215 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:08:54 +0000

From a Pats fan: Congrats Stillers. Go get another
Lombardi now.

By: grogansheroes

grogansheroes — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:08:28 +0000

4ever19 says:
Jan 23, 2011 7:50 PM
The officiating in the JV game (NFC) was pathetic. The intentional grounding call on Caleb (Mr.) Hanie was just laughable.
__________________
I think GB bets either one of these teams.

By: b7p19

b7p19 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:08:20 +0000

Miller overturned catch was right, sheilds confirmed INT was wrong. The rule is simple and doesn’t need to be changed. What needs to be changed are the knuckleheads in the media that can’t seem to grasp it.

By: grogansheroes

grogansheroes — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:07:34 +0000

24-0. Looks like the Jets won their Super Bowl last week. Hope Pitt puts another 24 on them in the second half.

By: snnyjcbs

snnyjcbs — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:06:15 +0000

That is where you are wrong, the NFL knows exactly what they are doing. Big plus when you can make on the same play a call to benefit what ever team you like. It is a catch in one game it is not in the next, lots of leeway for the NFL to nudge a game one way or the other as the GREEDY NFL OWNERS OF TODAY would like to see move on, its all about the dollar. Now that Pereira is no longer in the NFL we can see that he did not believe half the crap he use to explain as “the right call” while on NFL Network. He says the Tuck Rule is a Joke as well.

By: nekelund

nekelund — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:55:54 +0000

With respect to the Shields INT, the angles I saw watching tv were not at all conclusive as to whether the ball touched the ground or not, as Shields had one hand beneath the ball as it hit the ground. I’m not saying it didn’t touch the ground and the ball certainly moved, but unless you saw video angles I didn’t, the two “catches” are not comparable, as Shields’ didn’t clearly touch the ground. Maybe there’s another angle, but the officials certainly seem to agree with my view.

By: 4ever19

4ever19 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:50:19 +0000

The officiating in the JV game (NFC) was pathetic. The intentional grounding call on Caleb (Mr.) Hanie was just laughable.

By: pghguyy

pghguyy — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:48:55 +0000

brunell should have knocked dirty sanchez out for that booger.

By: gregt23

gregt23 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:45:24 +0000

I’m sorry, if that Steelers player did not make a “catch” then how can they consider anything a catch? The ball never hit the ground and he maintained possession. I feel the ref’s are controlling too much of the game.

By: peytonwantsaflag

peytonwantsaflag — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:45:21 +0000

Absolutely not. That would make a lot of awesome, clear diving catches incompletions.

No that would make a lot of awesome chear diving incompletions incompletions – those aren’t catches nepatriot….

and they need to outlaw those super sticky gloves too (I’m serious)

By: tfaulk

tfaulk — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:42:22 +0000

You have to be completely blind or a complete idiot to claim the ball didn’t touch the ground. It clearly touched the ground, bounced up (possession was not maintained), and then he established control in the crutch of his shoulder. Not a catch.

Sam Shields bobbled the ball but it never touched the ground. The two scenarios are not analogous at all.

By: lbijake

lbijake — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:41:22 +0000

I wish the teams would get out of the way so we can just watch a full day of Ed Hochuli. The arrogance of the NFL to think people actually care about games.

By: tobiasjodter

tobiasjodter — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:40:30 +0000

othingman20 says: Jan 23, 2011 7:11 PM

Who else saw Mark Sanchez wipe a booger on that coach?

You know you saw it.

—————————-

That was Mark Brunnell he was using as a tissue…

By: andalohameansgoodbye

andalohameansgoodbye — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:32:39 +0000

“Pat M. Crotch,”

There needs to be a post every time this ridiculous “rule” is interpreted because these are major plays and the rule is broken. It should not be up to differing opinions and interpretations on game-changing championship plays.

When the former director of officiating is saying one thing and the refs are saying another, it is a PROBLEM.

By: mybuttsayspft

mybuttsayspft — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:32:30 +0000

Written like a true Steelers fan.

By: knon2000

knon2000 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:28:04 +0000

I thought that there would be some whining about the refs, but I didn’t expect it to be coming from Mike

By: nepatriots128154

nepatriots128154 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:28:01 +0000

“Here’s the simple solution. If the ball strikes the ground at all in the act of the player making the catch, the pass is incomplete. If receivers are now required to get two feet in bounds even if they’re being pushed out, receivers also should be required to keep the ball from touching the turf.”

———————————————————————–

Absolutely not. That would make a lot of awesome, clear diving catches incompletions. It would also make catches like C. Johnson’s from week 1 incompletions as well.