Why Wasn't Coles Catch a First Down? [Archive]

AZ#1SkinsFan

09-28-2003, 03:32 PM

I watched the game at a sports bar, of course without any sound so I don't understand what happened. 3 and 16 Ramsey looks like he completed the pass to Coles who looked like he got enough for the first down. The play was ruled incomplete. Then challanged and remained incomplete. Why? He made the catch. I don't understand.

bfauble83

09-28-2003, 03:40 PM

they said that even if you go out of bounds you have to retain possession...he took 3 steps in bounds and dropped it when he hit the ground...seems like it should have been a catch to me, but thats how they ruled it.

Shabba

09-28-2003, 03:52 PM

The CBS announcers made that call all along. They said even before the challange that it was not a catch because he did not have enough control when he hit the ground. I actually thought it was a catch but the announcers kept saying that there was no need to keep replaying the play but that it was not a catch. One of them, not sure which one, but said that the fans and the coaches of the Skins do not know the rules if they thought that was a catch.
And after they reviewed it, the announcers were right.:mad: oh well.

AZ#1SkinsFan

09-28-2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by bfauble83
they said that even if you go out of bounds you have to retain possession...he took 3 steps in bounds and dropped it when he hit the ground...seems like it should have been a catch to me, but thats how they ruled it.

What a bunch of shit!!! How long do you have to hold the ball for it to be a completion? My god!!??

If he wasn't out of bounce they would have probably called it a fumble.

JoeDaSchmoe

09-28-2003, 03:58 PM

No. I didn't agree with that call at all, and I still don't despite the attempted explination from the CBS announcers. If a reciever is right on the sideline and only manages two steps in bounds before falling, then ball control on the fall comes into play. But when a player has four steps in bounds before going out, and stretches to get the ball as far forward as possible, it's no different than any other play in which the player is stretching for a first down. The ball will come out of the hands of any player stretching for a first about eight out of ten times. It's never an incompletion and never a fumble. It's down. That's it. It's not even a hard call for the refs. There was no reason that Coles's catch shouldn't have been treated the exact same way. If a reciever has full ball control, as Coles did, and two feet in bounds, as Coles did, then it's a catch. That's all you need. Ball control, two feet while you've got it. Catch. Anything that happens after that has nothing to do with whether or not the ball was caught.

Farbod

09-28-2003, 04:19 PM

The CBS announcer is a moron... If coles only had two feet touch and then dropped the ball when he hit the ground, thats an incomplete pass. However, he touched the ground 4 times, and clearly made a move up feild as he gained about another 2 yards before he dropped the ball as he hit the ground, this was CLEARLY a catch!!

skinswin'emALL

09-28-2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by JoeDaSchmoe
No. I didn't agree with that call at all, and I still don't despite the attempted explination from the CBS announcers. If a reciever is right on the sideline and only manages two steps in bounds before falling, then ball control on the fall comes into play. But when a player has four steps in bounds before going out, and stretches to get the ball as far forward as possible, it's no different than any other play in which the player is stretching for a first down. The ball will come out of the hands of any player stretching for a first about eight out of ten times. It's never an incompletion and never a fumble. It's down. That's it. It's not even a hard call for the refs. There was no reason that Coles's catch shouldn't have been treated the exact same way. If a reciever has full ball control, as Coles did, and two feet in bounds, as Coles did, then it's a catch. That's all you need. Ball control, two feet while you've got it. Catch. Anything that happens after that has nothing to do with whether or not the ball was caught.

You are EXACTLY correct my friend-- it only applies to 2 steps not 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, etc... -- Expect the Skins to get an "Ooops" from the league office on Tuesday.

At least it didn't cost us the game.

soch21

09-28-2003, 04:44 PM

i thought the ground couldn't cause a fumble!!!!

LuvSkins17

09-28-2003, 04:53 PM

I didn't like the call and JDS stated it all in his post...

Great Minds think alike!:D

AGibbsGirl

09-28-2003, 05:09 PM

Actually, the take I was getting on those announcers, was that after seeing the review, they were even starting to question the rule. There seemed to be a lot of hemming and hawing on their part.

My question is: One of them raised the issue of: Was Coles forced out of bounds?...why wasn't that explored more?

SkinsRock36

09-28-2003, 06:15 PM

I think that is the worst call I have ever seen. Coles had the ball with 3 feet in! WOW Refs suck badly and can blows games easy. If we lost that game with that call I would of flew to washington today and would of shot the refs! lol WOW bad call!
But we one!

GO SKINS!

GolfFreak

09-28-2003, 06:57 PM

There was a similar play in the Boys-Jets game (to Chrebet) - he caught it on the sideline and only got 2 feet down before fall in out of bounds. He had the ball cradeled in his hands and the ball hit the ground first. I believe it was called a catch, but IMO it's the same as Coles'!!!

The refs need to be held accountable for their mistakes, just like the players. I'd really like to see the league's option early next week on this call.

LadyNRedskinsfan

09-28-2003, 07:02 PM

i hear ya joe. the fact that coles had more than 2 steps in bounds is what baffles me. that was clearly a catch that could've cost us the game. i think this is a play that could change the rulebook a bit.

PennSkinsFan

09-28-2003, 07:02 PM

Yeah, my assumption was you had to have control, which he did, then get two feet down, which he did. Ground can not cause a fumble so I am not sure where this call came from. There was no bobbling at all. That call truly baffled me.

Emmanouel8

09-28-2003, 07:05 PM

Remember though the ruling on the field was he didn't have control! The biggest bull$hit call I've never seen. It was so clear cut my mouth dropped when they said it stood (I was listening to Sonny, Sam, and Frank). BS! BS! BS! They had camera angles, slow motion, and more than a minute of time and made an egregious ruling. Unbelievable. Four steps, FOUR STEPS! God bless you L.Coles you were my savior up until the refs stole your thunder.

Odyn

09-28-2003, 07:06 PM

First off, I don't think the refs even wanted to review the play. Then, if it was such a no brainer why did it take the guy 5 minutes to review it ! Let's face it. The refs blew it and the league office will let Spurrier know it at the end of the week. Thank God we won.

dj_stouty

09-28-2003, 07:40 PM

This was the BS call of the game. Coles had 3 feet in bounds WHILE holding possession of the ball. In fact, you could argue that he had 4 feet in bounds.

The refs really botched that play...and they are lucky the Skins ended up winning, or else who knows what the fans at Fed EX would have done.

rskinsfan10

09-28-2003, 08:11 PM

All I can say is it looked good at the stadium. I was shocked when the play stood. I did my best to let the refs know how I personally felt about the call.

MAATOPDOGG

09-28-2003, 09:25 PM

Fire'em all. It took that ref 5 minutes to review that play and then said it stood. They need to be accountable for some of these calls. F**kin idiots!!!

jsarno

09-28-2003, 09:41 PM

I am seriously horse because of that terrible call.
Here is my view.
1- he got at least 2 feet in.
2- he never bobbled it.
3- his KNEE WAS DOWN before his hands hit out of bounds thus meaning his IMMEDIATELY out of bounds and play is dead as a RECEPTION!
4- Ground can not cause the fumble on an out of bounds play. He had possession until the ball hit the ground. At that VERY INSTANT he was down. He does not need to be tackled or anything. He fulfilled every rule. It was a terrible, terrible call. At least it didn't hurt us.

jsarno

09-28-2003, 09:43 PM

And to be quite honest I'm still in shock...thank goodness Belichek had a brain fart and didn't let teh best kicker in the NFL have a shot at a 54 yard field goal or so!

jsarno

09-28-2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
I did my best to let the refs know how I personally felt about the call.

Really curious as to what you said. I'm sure whatever it was, it wasn't enough.
I don't see how any ref with eyes could not over turn that. It was clear as day...one of the easiest to over turn I;ve ever seen.
You gonna share with us Kenny?

GhostRider68

09-29-2003, 05:27 AM

I've said it once before, Dan needs to come up off some cash and pay these part-time officials. I mean it couldn't hurt because it clearly looks as though there is a bias against us. All kidding aside, what could've been going through that ref's mind when he looked at that replay for 5 min. ?

Patrick

09-29-2003, 06:26 AM

Monday morning Washington Post article by Sally Jenkins headlines pretty much sums it up:
" Redskins Played by Rules, Refs Played With Them"

And of course the nice color photo to go with it really tell the story.

jporterweb

09-29-2003, 08:10 AM

The guys on NFL Prime Time said it was definitly a catch, and they didn't get the call.

NamVet4

09-29-2003, 08:30 AM

This is just another indication of a big can of worms that has opened about refs, instant replay, coaches challenges and up-in-the-booth challenges.
Technology has confused the situation - not clarified it and IMHO has reduced the level of competency of the refs.

AGibbsGirl

09-29-2003, 08:31 AM

8. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

I got this off the web because the announcer kept trying to say that he never "Completed" the possesion. I assume they were talking about the fact that Coles never tucked the ball into his chest

Show me where you must tuck the ball into your chest for a pass to be completed...

hail2skins

09-29-2003, 08:44 AM

Well, it did look like a catch from my vantage point and I couldn't believe they ruled it incomplete. Coles was calling for SS to challenge it right away.

As far as the refs go, Riggo was on 980am this morning and stated that the NFL needs to do something about refs. He feels they need full-time refs and not these part time guys. He also said they needed younger, more in-shape guys that could run up and down the field to keep up with the game. Alot of people in the media are questioning that call. It's a good thing I didn't here the announcers because I would have probably thrown something at my TV and be shopping for a new one today.

Minnesota Mike

09-29-2003, 08:51 AM

My 8 year-old daughter made the right call on that play, but the guys on the field couldn't? I found that terrible disturbing, but thankfully it didn't alter the final result of the game.

Patrick

09-29-2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by hail2skins
Well, it did look like a catch from my vantage point and I couldn't believe they ruled it incomplete. Coles was calling for SS to challenge it right away.

As far as the refs go, Riggo was on 980am this morning and stated that the NFL needs to do something about refs. He feels they need full-time refs and not these part time guys. He also said they needed younger, more in-shape guys that could run up and down the field to keep up with the game. Alot of people in the media are questioning that call. It's a good thing I didn't here the announcers because I would have probably thrown something at my TV and be shopping for a new one today.

73" wide screen from the Big Screen Store and you don't have to make any payments until 2005. It would look REALLY nice at your home! LOL

jporterweb

09-29-2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by hail2skins
Well, it did look like a catch from my vantage point and I couldn't believe they ruled it incomplete. Coles was calling for SS to challenge it right away.

As far as the refs go, Riggo was on 980am this morning and stated that the NFL needs to do something about refs. He feels they need full-time refs and not these part time guys. He also said they needed younger, more in-shape guys that could run up and down the field to keep up with the game. Alot of people in the media are questioning that call. It's a good thing I didn't here the announcers because I would have probably thrown something at my TV and be shopping for a new one today.

I was lucky, my football didn't knock the TV over, cause I did throw mine.

jsarno

09-29-2003, 09:27 AM

my coffee table was taking the brunt, my 61 inch toshiba is "untouchable"...well that, and my wifes ears took some brunt too. Plus scaring the poo out of our dog, and my cat went hiding for about an hour after that.
Just don't know how they can justify that call. Maybe they should be fined.

jporterweb

09-29-2003, 09:34 AM

I'm still pissed about that call, imagine if it would've cost us the game.

Brokenstriker

09-29-2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by bfauble83
they said that even if you go out of bounds you have to retain possession...he took 3 steps in bounds and dropped it when he hit the ground...seems like it should have been a catch to me, but thats how they ruled it.

He had five (5) foot touched after catching the ball in bounds ... he had the ball securely held for each of the 4 in-bounds steps he took ... he was being tackled and in the process of being tackled the ball was dislodged by the ground ... unless Sonny Jurgenson has been lying to me all these years .... the ground can not cause a fumble ...

anyway you look at it ... the Redskins were completely, ruthlessly ... hosed by the replay official

BigDaddyBohnzie

09-29-2003, 10:44 AM

It was Phil Simms that was so sure of himself yesterday...

I don't agree with the call either...he clearly had possession of the ball and enough feet down to make it a catch...however, "On plays inside the boundary lines, the ground cannot cause a fumble. But, according to the officials, the player must have possession when he lands out of bounds because the ground can cause a fumble." (source (http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-84602sy0sep29,0,1913990.story?coll=dp-sports-local))

Coles clearly didn't have possession when he landed out of bounds. However I too thought it should have been a moot point because his knee was down in bounds before his stretch...

Emmanouel8

09-29-2003, 11:08 AM

I didn't notice his knee but I'm not the stupid official who has replay booth for 5 minutes who didn't either.

hail2skins

09-29-2003, 12:34 PM

"I certainly don't believe they're cheating," Spurrier said, "because, I mean, that replay is going to be shown all over the country."

Interesting comment from Spurrier. Does he really mean that? We've heard the conspiracy theories on this board before. I wonder if the NFL will react to that comment.

hail2skins

09-29-2003, 03:09 PM

Okay, I just found this statement at redskins.com. Can you tell me what's wrong with the wording of the rule:

There is a NFL rule, according to league officials, that when a player makes a reception and does not immediately tuck away the ball before it hits the ground (whether in bounds or not), the play can be ruled an incompletion.

dj_stouty

09-29-2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by hail2skins
There is a NFL rule, according to league officials, that when a player makes a reception and does not immediately tuck away the ball before it hits the ground (whether in bounds or not), the play can be ruled an incompletion.

Since when do you have to "tuck away" the ball for a completion? This is news to me...

Enforcement of this rule will change football as we know it! :bangdesk:

PennSkinsFan

09-29-2003, 03:28 PM

There squirming

jsarno

09-29-2003, 03:46 PM

here is the facts as I see it...only the stupid official saw it as an incompletion. The rest of the world can't be wrong. Even my brother (patriot fan) said it was a completion (then laughed at me while I got in even more a pissy mood).
If 99.9% of teh country see it as a completion, I doubt that it wasn't.

Emmanouel8

09-29-2003, 04:51 PM

Tuck my a$$ when the situation is to get a 1st down a foot away. He had to keep the ball out to get the 1st down.

rskinsfan10

09-29-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
Really curious as to what you said. I'm sure whatever it was, it wasn't enough.
I don't see how any ref with eyes could not over turn that. It was clear as day...one of the easiest to over turn I;ve ever seen.
You gonna share with us Kenny?

As opinionated as I am, along with the fact that I don't usually bite my tongue, I will say that in this case it's best that I not repeat what I said.

jsarno

09-29-2003, 05:13 PM

:lol1:

OK...I was just curious since I pretty much knew what I would have said ;)

hail2skins

09-29-2003, 05:49 PM

Sonny and George were going over the play with Spurrier and one comment that Sonny (I believe) made was look at NE's coaches. They weren't saying it was incomplete as you would expect them being it was on their sideline.

hail2skins

09-29-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by dj_stouty
Since when do you have to "tuck away" the ball for a completion? This is news to me...

Enforcement of this rule will change football as we know it! :bangdesk:

I hear you DJ. The tuck is a good one but I was more concerned with that "can be" ruled incomplete. My question is what determines if it "can be" ruled incomplete. Is this a 50/50 thing.

JoeDaSchmoe

09-29-2003, 06:08 PM

Firstly, nowhere on earth does it say that for a play to be ruled a completion, the ball has to be tucked. Coles can catch the ball with his hands and hold it at arm's length from his body the whole entire time, and as long as he has control, it's a catch.

Secondly, if that thing they pulled out of their ass is a rule, it a) is worded absolutely horribly, and b) has no affect on a completion. The wording of the "rule" says that if the player falls out of bounds, the ground can cause a fumble. Seeing as the player is out of bounds, a fumble wouldn't really matter. Secondly, it says the ground can cause a fumble. If a fumbled ball goes out of bounds, the offensive team retains posession. It's still not an incompletion.