re: The overturn

quote:

---

He literally caught the ball, and then fell to the ground out of bounds

---

That is also true of every receiver who catches a ball at the 20 and then gets tackled at the pylon and hits the ground out of bounds. What criteria in "the rule" did those guys meet that Brown did not? He caught the ball in the field of play outside the endzone, took a step inbounds to cross the goal line, got pulled down by the defender, took another step, then hit the ground out of bounds.

I still can't believe so many people don't get why it was overturned.

Use Durham's TD as a perfect example. If a ball carrier breaks the plane of the end zone and then fumbles when he hits the ground, it doesn't matter. It's a TD and play was over the instand he broke the goal line. Doesn't matter that he fumbled when he hit the ground.

On the other hand, if the goal line is crossed within the act of catching a thrown ball, and the player doesn't not fulfill the definition of a completed pass, then the TD does not count, even if the receiver hits the ground five yards into the end zone and took two steps in the process. If, when the receiver hits the ground and the ball moves (as it clearly did last night), it is an incomplete pass. As in Barrion Brown's action last night, he crossed the goal line (hit the pylon) with possession of the ball, but he did NOT maintain clear control when he hit the ground.

To put it succinctly, you have to complete the definition of making a catch for the outcome to be anything other than an incomplete pass.

If you accidentally touched down vote, touch upvote after then refresh the screen. It will remove the down vote and count the upvote.

Went back and looked and his second was out but it is still irrelevant because he maintained possession to the ground and the ground can’t cause a fumble, therefore it’s a TD.

quote:

---

he maintained possession to the ground and the ground can’t cause a fumble, therefore it’s a TD.

---

I think so too, but people cant understand this is what was in question lol

quote:

---

But possession has to survive the ground

---

Only if the receiver is going to the ground when he makes the catch. Going to the ground later (two steps or twenty yards, no difference) does not trigger the "possession has to survive the ground" rule because they are no longer a receiver. What is in the rule that makes you think a guy who has taken two steps, been hit by a defender, and crossed the goalline before hitting the ground still a receiver making a catch? And, again, what language do you contend distinguishes him from the guy who caught it at the 20 and ran in before hitting the ground?

It was a catch. Terrible call. I am going to ask Daniel for his thoughts next time I see him.

Lester either way he survived the ground. Anything otherwise is just smoking crack whether he wasn’t a ball carrier or not he survived the ground. It’s not even a question everyone agrees it was a TD. Only a select few think it’s not. I don’t know if you’re trying to rage bait but it’s not working.

Okay buddy.

quote:

---

he took 1 step and fell to the ground.

---

Well, that would be enough for the "going to the ground" not to apply because he wasn't going to ground when he made the catch. I said two because that's what'son the video. His left foot was on the ground (possibly just left the ground) at the 2 when the ball got there, then his right foot hit the ground just inside the one, then his left foot hit the ground on the sideline in the endzone. That's two steps.