Yet another interesting call involving a Lions game

[unde0087]

I am not sure how they overturned that

[d2bets]

Completely absurd. Speechless. Let's see how they justify this later. Process of the catch? Became a runner? Football move?

Nobody understands the damn rules. But that sure looked like an interception.

[unde0087]

Ya, it's getting rediculous. I just can't believe it always seems to involve the Lions

[TwoWays]

Who do u blame. No name to guys in New York calling reversing it. Clearly an interception.

[d2bets]

I guess they must have said he fully caught the ball in the field of play, became a runner before reaching endzone and then crossed the plane. But don't you have to have possession and then make a football move before you become a runner? No way he did that. He crossed endzone before both feet even came down. Therefore, he has to finish catch which he most clearly did not as it was immediately jarred loose.

[TwoWays]

There's no justification to reverse it. He's not a runner. He didn't complete process of catch. He didn't make a football move. They have no reason to overturn that.

[rm18]

Golden Tate

[icecapper]

This call is hilarious. Honestly the shittiest league all in all. Thank goodness for fantasy/gambling.

[unde0087]

Love how the ref doesn't explain knowing when he reverses the call it will be talked about all week

[CanuckG]

Blandino just explained it on NFL REDZONE. Makes sense. Still hate it though.

[d2bets]

Blandino just explained it on NFL REDZONE. Makes sense. Still hate it though.

aaaaaaand what is the explanation. Pereira disagrees.

[Roadtrip635]

I guess rule these plays according to who they have money on, cuz it surely isn't based on consistency.

[TwoWays]

Only blandino agrees with the reverse call. Everyone else including former nfl refs disagrees with him.

[d2bets]

100% wrong. Take a look. He did not get two feet down until the ball broke the plane. Therefore, he did not catch the ball before the endzone. When the ball is caught (or attempted to catch) in the endzone, then the "broke the plane" rules do not apply. WE all know you must finish the process, and he clearly did not.

So again, I need to hear Blandino's explanation. What exactly was it???? Someone?

[CanuckG]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-instant-replay/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains

[unde0087]

aaaaaaand what is the explanation. Pereira disagrees.

Exactly

[d2bets]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-instan...ndino-explains

Hie explanation is wrong, for the reasons I stated. For that to be true, he has to become a runner outside of the endzone. So if he had not been in the endzone when both feet came down he'd be right. But go to the tape, when the second foot came down the ball was well past the plane. A catch inside the endzone has a different rule -- breaking the plane doesn't apply.

Notice Balndino doesn't even address this. I think he just assumed the catch was before the endzone. He needs to look again.

This is not debatable. The rule in this case is actually clear enough to know that it was not a TD.

[d2bets]

Let's see if I can make this even clearer:

1. When the ball hit his chest, his feet were in the air. It cannot be a catch until two feet hit down. Can we all agree on that?
2. Now go to the tape...stop it when the second foot comes down -- where is this ball? Is it outside of the endzone or inside the endzone? Answer: INSIDE. Right?
3. OK, then. When the ball is caught INSIDE the endzone, we all know that the receiver must complete the process. He did not. Defender was in contact and the ball was jarred loose immediately.

That is NOT a catch. Period. And end of story.

[ttwarrior1]

even detroit fans know thats not a touchdown, won't matter, bears will win

[ttwarrior1]

um, no, u don't need feet down to catch a ball in the endzone. Thats not the reason i don't think it should of been a td

Let's see if I can make this even clearer:

1. When the ball hit his chest, his feet were in the air. It cannot be a catch until two feet hit down. Can we all agree on that?
2. Now go to the tape...stop it when the second foot comes down -- where is this ball? Is it outside of the endzone or inside the endzone? Answer: INSIDE. Right?
3. OK, then. When the ball is caught INSIDE the endzone, we all know that the receiver must complete the process. He did not. Defender was in contact and the ball was jarred loose immediately.

That is NOT a catch. Period. And end of story.

[d2bets]

um, no, u don't need feet down to catch a ball in the endzone. Thats not the reason i don't think it should of been a td

Say what? Are you suggesting that a ball can be a catch without getting 2 feet (or another body part) down? When you catch a ball airborne, it cannot be a catch until 2 feet or a body part hit down. This is not the hard part.