The Andre No-catch

There was a similar situation this week with Frank Gore. He caught a ball in the end zone with two feet down and his momentum took him out of bounds. As he was jumping out of bounds, the defender knocked the ball out of his hands. It was called a TD and after review, the TD stood. I don't understand the difference. Frank had two feet down and possession and so did Andre. The NFL needs to figure this out and explain it clearly to its refs.

 

That was a TD Moes. You had a right to be pissed that they didn't count that. Replay at its worst.

 

If that had been peyton manning's receiver, that would have been ruled a touchdown. Kubiak would have thrown the flag and the play would go under review. After 30 seconds of viewing the replay, refs would declare " the ruling on the field stands."

 

they explained it with gore if you were watching. The receiver was in the endzone going out of bounds, but he was not going to the ground. After he went out of bounds, the play was over. If he was going to the ground as part of the catch (as Andre was) after catching it in the endzeon--whether in bounds or out--and the defender knocked it away as he went to the ground, Gore's would have been incomplete.

Not saying I agree, but I understand their rules

 

so tired of that

 

If you catch the ball and you're falling to the ground, you need to have control of it all the way to the ground.

 

I was watching, and I heard the explanation. But if you watched the replay, if I remember correctly, Gore was in the air before landing out of bounds when the ball came out. So, I just question how that's different than the Andre situation.

 

he didn't go to the ground as part of the catch.

He caught it and tip toed with 2 feet in bounds. Then he stepped out of bounds, and the defender immediately knocked the ball out of his hands (actually took it from him)

In no way was Gore going to the ground. As I explained in the last post you replied to, he has to be going to the ground as part of the catch.

 

well, catching it all the way to the ground includes holding onto the ball after you hit the ground. The ground can cause you to lose the ball when determining catch vs. no-catch (endzone or otherwise) when possession has not yet been 100% established. It just cannot cause a fumble.

 

When making catches in the end zone and falling down, either in bounds or out of bounds, the player must maintain the catch through the act of hitting the ground, at least the first time. If you hit the ground and roll or flip and hit it again, the first time is enough to count as possession I think(the Jacoby Jones instance comes to mind).

 

I know EXACTLY which two plays you're talking about. Someone was robbed at least ONCE.

 

They need to change the rule, because if that play was at the 30, it's a fumble.

 

That is, if he isn't knocked to the ground...it's basically no TD though if there's a drop, right?

BTW...yall know the nfl HATES the raiders...

 

how so? if it was at the 30, it'd be incomplete because the ground can't cause a fumble..?