The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I know you all saw that Coles catch at the end of the game...where he dove for the ball and held it in his hands (without bobbling it)...then falling to the ground where the ball was knocked out.

I have to admit, I don't really know some of the rules as much as I'd like....but I thought if a player had control of the ball and the ground knocked it out...it would be a completion.

Am I wrong about this?

If I'm right, the refs totally blew that instant replay call at the end of the game...and it almost cost us!

Thankfully, we pulled this one out so the point is moot...but I'm just lookin' to see if anyone knows the official "rule" reference to the catch.

He had possession with more than two steps. The ground shouldn't have made a bit of difference, or at least that is how I understand the rules.

I could easily be wrong on that, but I was sure three steps with clear possession meant a catch.

What's interesting is that the ref who made the initial call said he bobbled to ball and that was why it was incomplete.

I also don't know all the rules but it looked like a catch to me. Do you have to pull the ball into your body for it to be considered a catch?

Luckily we can all ponder this with a win under our belts - just wish we could push the score up a little - these close ones are hard on my nerves.

I fully expect a retraction by the NFL this week. That call was so bogus I could die. Seriously, what a gut check by the D after that, but also, what a great play by our offense when we needed it most.

Is it just me or are the officials becoming the star of the NFL this year? They seem to be the deciding factor in WAY to many games...

speek wrote: these close ones are hard on my nerves.

According to Rod Gardner, they are hard on his nerves too

The new rule supposedly states that the receiver MUST maintain control of the ball even AFTER he hits the ground. Apparently, the receiver must maintain control even when he hits the ground (unlike in the field of play)

I'll try to dig up the rule tomorrow and see if we can get to the bottom of it.

I agree with Noel though, what a gut check from the D after to keep the game a win.

It was great D... that is for sure

I didn't hear about the change in the possession rule but it was still one tremendous effort by Coles even so, don't you think? What hands - didn't drop it until hitting the ground.

Great "Catch" by Coles

Great Defense to secure the win.

Now let's win by 40 each week so we don't get in that situation again and I don't lose anymore of the grey hairs I can't spare.

I'm starting to look like this guy below!

So that rule means if a reciever catches it in midfield runs around with ball taking 50 steps and dancing, then runs it to a sideine gets tackled out of bounds and while hitting the ground loses the ball. That would be considered incomplete???? Hmm if thats a rule well its complete crap. One thing i still don't understand is if thats a rule then why is it when a RB breaks the plan for a TD and loses a ball still a TD? All i'm saying is a the refs have something on the skins. 4 Bad calls in the pats game. All against the skins. First the champ bailey PI, then the Lavernous coles PI, then the Coles catch, and the review of it. How hard is it to see the refs are out to get us?

No the rule only applies when the receiver has only got two feet in to the field of play. If 3 feet are down in the field of play, then the rule is not supposed to be applied.

If I get a chance later, I'll try to find the rule but I'm at work and have limited 'surf' time.

It was a helluva an effort regardless.....Coles is a great receiver and worth every penny.

I agree with that TH...

Boss, I wanna go back and look at that play on my tape... but I wuz fer sure he had three feet down in bounds in control... but once again it is from memory - and that memory was colored in red - as in blood red when that call was made... ::grin::

If it did, then the rule you are stating doesn't apply if I am interpreting what you are saying right...

Like we all think though... heckuva effort on LC's part.

BossHog wrote:No the rule only applies when the receiver has only got two feet in to the field of play. If 3 feet are down in the field of play, then the rule is not supposed to be applied.

If I get a chance later, I'll try to find the rule but I'm at work and have limited 'surf' time.

I've watched the replay myriad times. He DID take THREE steps before reaching the sideline.

three steps = a catch, case closed - the stupid rule doesn't apply in that case....at least that's what I've heard

IF that is what Boss can confirm... I agree. I thought there were three steps. I always hated that little pig faced ref - I don't think he sides with us on much of anything

I think it's a stupid rule even with two feet down.....the ground can't cause a fumble inbounds....I don't care for some stupid Chris Carter rule.

I agree TH... by the way LavarArringtonfan -welcome aboard! Nice to have another fellow fan on the boards!

Jump in anytime in these posts... most of us won't bite... ::evil smile::

Thank you. I beleive even if Coles had 7 steps the refs would say it would be incomplete. Coles took 3 steps. That was a catch nonetheless. The refs are trying to find a way for us to lose. We showed those zebras.

I was at the game this sunday and I was almost certain it was a catch. It was hard to tell though from my seats because I was sitting in some nose bleeders. After seeing the replay on ESPN it was definitly a catch I think, but I guess according to the new rule that boss hog stated if the ground knocks it loose it's not a catch and that's what happen.

I'm jsut glad that it didn't cost us the game. There's nothing like driving 400 miles to watch the skins play in nosebleeder seats and have them lose because of a blown call.

Great game overall and I had a great time and I'm going to definitly make it to another this season.

GO SKINS!

I wish I could have gotten to the game myself...

If the rule states 2 feet in and control... he had 3 - just reviewed it... shouldn't matter whether the ball came out or not.

From what they were saying is, you must have 3 steps, they said he had two steps and then bubbled the ball while hitting the ground (which is bs) but they said the refs could call it incomplete, it is up to them to determine that, at least that is what the annoucers where saying yesterday, about the out of bounch rule. He had 3 steps and a great catch, in my head. But like it was stated before, we can't let teams back in it, they need to go for the jugular when we have them. Good Win, but we need to start out hot next week at Philthadelphia, no more fieldgoals, we need TD's
Marc

The call was so ridiculously wrong and incompetent, that even the most conservative judge on the Supreme Court would have ruled it a reception! BTW: The High Court is writing their opinion as we speak. Look out Ref. White.......the SC just may subpoena you in the NFL doesn't first! heheh

Ideagirl

For what it's worth, I thought there were 3 steps, too.

Oh there were 3 steps alright... I hope nobody thinks I was justifying the call, I was just saying what it was supposed to be based on.

What a freakin awesome catch regardless.

Not a bad throw either.

Water under the bridge... we're 3-1.

Whooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Give me three steps
Give me three steps mister
And you won't score a TD
No more

::grin::