Buffalo Bills 2022-23

[Scottysabres]

3 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

The Poyer non-INT call really bothered me. The ball did not survive the ground doesn’t make any sense. 
 

If Poyer caught the ball in the middle of the field, bobbled it, and regained possession without the ball touching the ground, that’s an INT.  Poyer had two feet down in bounds before the bobble and regained control without the ball touching the ground.  Am I the only one who thinks that should have been an INT?

The notes under the NFL rules is pretty clear it's considered incomplete pass/interception.

It's under Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3

Completed or intercepted passes.

Note 2: If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds.

I suspect that is what they made the call from the sky box with upon review. Like yourself, I don't agree with it.

[shrader]

35 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

The notes under the NFL rules is pretty clear it's considered incomplete pass/interception.

It's under Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3

Completed or intercepted passes.

Note 2: If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds.

I suspect that is what they made the call from the sky box with upon review. Like yourself, I don't agree with it.

What are a b and c?

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, shrader said:

What are a b and c?

Guessing it is:

A. Gains control of the ball

B. Both feet (or 1 knee) in bounds

C.  A 3rd step or a football move.

Close?

[inkman]

I know we all love and breathe sports but I refuse to put one ounce of energy into deciphering what the NFL deems a catch.  

[Scottysabres]

2 hours ago, shrader said:

What are a b and c?

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone 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) after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

[Scottysabres]

Here is the rule, with the notes, as prescribed in and currently enforced by the NFL as of this date....

ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone 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) after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

Notes:

(1) Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control.

(2) If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds.

(3) A receiver is considered a player in a defenseless posture (See Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9) throughout the entire process of the catch and until the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent.

(4) If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

(5) If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass. It is not necessary for the player to maintain control of the ball when he lands out of bounds.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Scottysabres

[drnkirishone]

I don't understand the confusion. He did not maintain control from when his feet landed in bounds. Once he lost control he had to re-establish control in bounds. which he could not do because he was out of bounds. Soon as they showed the replay I knew it was not a catch and would be overturned to incomplete.

[Porous Five Hole]

11 minutes ago, drnkirishone said:

I don't understand the confusion. He did not maintain control from when his feet landed in bounds. Once he lost control he had to re-establish control in bounds. which he could not do because he was out of bounds. Soon as they showed the replay I knew it was not a catch and would be overturned to incomplete.

I think my gripe is Poyer had complete control in bounds with two feet down. Surviving the ground is just stupid to me.  Maybe if he lost the ball completely and it touched the ground I would understand. But a bobble and re-grasp just seems like it should be okay…as it is in the middle of the field. 

[SwampD]

11 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

I think my gripe is Poyer had complete control in bounds with two feet down. Surviving the ground is just stupid to me.  Maybe if he lost the ball completely and it touched the ground I would understand. But a bobble and re-grasp just seems like it should be okay…as it is in the middle of the field. 

If that had happened in the middle of the field, it would have been incomplete. The ball touched the ground causing it to move.

[shrader]

59 minutes ago, SwampD said:

If that had happened in the middle of the field, it would have been incomplete. The ball touched the ground causing it to move.

It never hit the ground though, right? Just shifted in his arms. The only clips I can find are pretty crappy. 

[Broken Ankles]

39 minutes ago, shrader said:

It never hit the ground though, right? Just shifted in his arms. The only clips I can find are pretty crappy. 

Didn’t look like it hits the ground. 

[SwampD]

33 minutes ago, shrader said:

It never hit the ground though, right? Just shifted in his arms. The only clips I can find are pretty crappy. 

Oh, I thought it hit the ground.

Either way, surviving the ground has been the rule forever. By the time he finished the catch, he was out of bounds. No interception. I actually find it to be one of the more clear rules the NFL has.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

Didn’t look like it hits the ground. 

It didn’t touch the ground. But what bothers me is that as soon as his knee touched out of bounds, the play was over and he had control of the ball at that point. And if the play was over, then how is it possible to complete a “football move” after a play? The NFL catch rule is absurd.

[Porous Five Hole]

8 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Oh, I thought it hit the ground.

Either way, surviving the ground has been the rule forever. By the time he finished the catch, he was out of bounds. No interception. I actually find it to be one of the more clear rules the NFL has.

I’m just saying that the pass catcher had two feet down in bounds. And the ball never hit the ground after the fact. Seems like a catch to me.  
 

If the rules still state otherwise, then the rule is stupid because it only applies to the sideline. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Porous Five Hole

[SwampD]

Just now, Porous Five Hole said:

I’m just saying that the pass catcher had two feet down in bounds. And the hall never hit the ground after the fact. Seems like a catch to me.  
 

If the rules still state otherwise, then the rule is stupid because it only applies to the sideline. 

It applies to all the out of bounds. The same thing happens at the end of the endzones, as well.

[shrader]

7 hours ago, K-9 said:

It didn’t touch the ground. But what bothers me is that as soon as his knee touched out of bounds, the play was over and he had control of the ball at that point. And if the play was over, then how is it possible to complete a “football move” after a play? The NFL catch rule is absurd.

That was the one piece I was wondering about, the third point of contact when his knee was down on the sideline. But whatever, they’re never going to be able to piece together a catch rule that makes sense and people like. 

[JujuFish]

20 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

The Poyer non-INT call really bothered me. The ball did not survive the ground doesn’t make any sense. 
 

If Poyer caught the ball in the middle of the field, bobbled it, and regained possession without the ball touching the ground, that’s an INT.  Poyer had two feet down in bounds before the bobble and regained control without the ball touching the ground.  Am I the only one who thinks that should have been an INT?

He bobbled the ball out of bounds. To me, that isn't in an interception, nor should it be.

[JujuFish]

19 hours ago, Marvin said:

Dallas has a lot more cachet than Buffalo.

If by "more cachet" you mean "more money to offer", then sure.

[GoPre]

3 minutes ago, JujuFish said:

He bobbled the ball out of bounds. To me, that isn't in an interception, nor should it be.

But he had control in bounds

[PASabreFan]

Just now, GoPre said:

But he had control in bounds

You have to complete the catch... "Survive the ground."

(I'm the last person to ask though lol.)

[JujuFish]

1 minute ago, GoPre said:

But he had control in bounds

He was falling to the ground.  He needs to maintain control through the fall, which he did not.

[GoPre]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

You have to complete the catch... "Survive the ground."

(I'm the last person to ask though lol.)

I like what Shrader said. “they’re never going to be able to piece together a catch rule that makes sense and people like.”

[Scottysabres]

If you think it wasn't a catch based on the bobbling of the ball after ground contact, watch the video closely, look specifically at which of his body parts touch the ground first, out of bounds mind you, after his feet established a legal catch inbounds.

Then, go read the section of the rules on "Down by contact", out of bounds.

You'll be mad when you see the contradictions between that rule and the overturned call.

[Scottysabres]

2 hours ago, JujuFish said:

He was falling to the ground.  He needs to maintain control through the fall, which he did not.

This is actually incorrect in this situation. The moment his arm, above the wrist, touched the ground out of bounds, he was down. 

He had possession when that happened.

It's akin to "stepping out of bounds". Think of it this way, his feet went out of bounds before his body touched the ground, that is an immediate whistle and end of play.

I.E. A player foot steps out of bounds a split second before the ball is fumbled. It's a dead ball before the fumble. There are contradicting calls within these rule sections.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Scottysabres

[inkman]

I can’t believe people are still talking about this