NFL informs Bucs they agree with Taylor INT call

[donny77]

How I would rewrite the rule:

Option 1 - Play would Stand
...if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until coming to a rest, whether in the field of play or in 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.

Option 2 - Play would be a catch
...if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he initially touches the ground in a manner that would be consistent with down by contact rules, whether in the field of play or in 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.

Might work on the second option a little.

[TheChronicHotAir]

The way the rule is being Applied by the NFL, all DB coaches have to be telling their players to Tackle the Other team after what USED TO be a TD-- and to keep swiping at the ball even after the player is commonsense"Down".

[buc5win]

It was bullcrap. He was down!! I can't remember being this pissed off over a call.

Playoff game against the redskins... incomplete in the endzone.

[donny77]

This situation is different than Louis Murphy and Edell Sheppard.  Both of these cases the receiver lost possession as they hit the ground. A defender did not jar the ball loose AFTER they hit the ground. Also, Clayton's motion was coming up off the ground when the ball was stripped. This means, he had possession after contacting the ground, because he was coming up from the ground. The way the rule is written, it does not cover this scenario.

[NotDeadYet]

It was bullcrap. He was down!! I can't remember being this pissed off over a call.

He was down without possession.

"Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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."'

  That's fine, but FOR HOW LONG must he maintain possession? That's where the inconsistancy lies. Often we see a receiver hit the ground with the ball, a defender arrives very quickly to strip it, and the play is considered dead. There's a very wide inconsistancy in how this is called.

[CurtR1995]

It was bullcrap. He was down!! I can't remember being this pissed off over a call.

He was down without possession.

"Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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."'

  That's fine, but FOR HOW LONG must he maintain possession? That's where the inconsistancy lies. Often we see a receiver hit the ground with the ball, a defender arrives very quickly to strip it, and the play is considered dead. There's a very wide inconsistancy in how this is called.

The NFL is VERY inconsistent.  In fact I and others on this board recall one glaring Dolphin play yesterday where the ball was dropped after the player hit the ground. 

This was a catch, unless you make the argument that the play goes on for an infinite amount of time.

I have no problem with them missing on a bang bang play, but there is no reason for this call after the luxury of seeing the replay.   

[SWAGGANEER]

It was bullcrap. He was down!! I can't remember being this pissed off over a call.

He was down without possession.

"Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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."'

� That's fine, but FOR HOW LONG must he maintain possession? That's where the inconsistancy lies. Often we see a receiver hit the ground with the ball, a defender arrives very quickly to strip it, and the play is considered dead. There's a very wide inconsistancy in how this is called.

He was down by contact, and after rolling over onto his knees the ball was stripped by Yeremiah Bell!

F'ing garbage!

NFfaiL

[SWAGGANEER]

See Clayton bring the ball in, 1 foot down, 2 feet down, elbow down, butt down, couple things and the ball doesn't come out till now. Ronnie, I don't know about you but that's a catch, down by contact.

After reviewing the play, the Tampa receiver possessed the ball but was going to the ground. The ball never did hit the ground, popped up, it was intercepted by Miami. However, by rule we cannot apply an advance.

Of course the ball never hit the ground, it was stripped after MC80 was down!

Ok, so MC80 possessed the ball even after being down by contact. Yet the ball was stripped and therefore ruled an INT? BULL F'n HITS!!!

[ryan24]

It was bullcrap. He was down!! I can't remember being this pissed off over a call.

He was down without possession.

So you're saying it's an INT?
The ball isn't dead until it hits the ground.

Yes. It was an interception.

[ryan24]

It was bullcrap. He was down!! I can't remember being this pissed off over a call.

He was down without possession.

"Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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."'

  That's fine, but FOR HOW LONG must he maintain possession? That's where the inconsistancy lies. Often we see a receiver hit the ground with the ball, a defender arrives very quickly to strip it, and the play is considered dead. There's a very wide inconsistancy in how this is called.

Not in the act of catching the ball. You are likely referring to plays in which the receiver already is considered to have possession and then is tackled to the ground. That scenario does not apply. The only part of the rule that applies here is the act of catching the ball. Clayton did not have possession according to the rule.

[ryan24]

It was bullcrap. He was down!! I can't remember being this pissed off over a call.

He was down without possession.

"Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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."'

� That's fine, but FOR HOW LONG must he maintain possession? That's where the inconsistancy lies. Often we see a receiver hit the ground with the ball, a defender arrives very quickly to strip it, and the play is considered dead. There's a very wide inconsistancy in how this is called.

The NFL is VERY inconsistent.  In fact I and others on this board recall one glaring Dolphin play yesterday where the ball was dropped after the player hit the ground. 

This was a catch, unless you make the argument that the play goes on for an infinite amount of time.

I have no problem with them missing on a bang bang play, but there is no reason for this call after the luxury of seeing the replay.   

Recall the Louis Murphy play earlier in the year. Same deal. Same call.

[ryan24]

The NFL is VERY inconsistent.  In fact I and others on this board recall one glaring Dolphin play yesterday where the ball was dropped after the player hit the ground.

Do you recall which play it was and whether the play was reviewed?

[nubcake]

lol at anyone trying to argue this. Every Dolphins fan I know, including the homers, all agreed that the call was ridiculous. None of them even attempted to defend it because it was that obvious.

The NFL won't do anything about it because, like I said on gameday, nobody outside of Tampa cares. If this happened in the Colts/Pats game they'd be sending an apology and announcing suspensions. If it doesn't show up on an ESPN debate between John Clayton and Trent Dilfer, the NFL won't even bat an eye.

[TheAman]

Here's my question.  If two feet down and falling isn't enough to grant a catch, what is the exact moment that a catch is granted?  Cause as far as I can tell from this ruling, you can catch it, take a few steps, dive to get a few extra yards, but if you hit the ground and it's bobbled, it's not a catch.

[BuccanAy]

Youre blind AND ignorant.  Look at the picture, he's down by contact, with possession, SIMPLE!