Blandino says McFadden lacked “firm control” on overturned catch

[mahoneybill]

I went freeze frame on this thing, and here's the truth. McFadden caught the ball and fumbled. His left hand awkwardly tried to tuck the ball under his shoulder, but tossed it backwards instead. This happened after two feet were down with ball under control, and it was only a fraction of a second after that second foot touched that he lost control.

A catch, in general terms, is possession with two feet down. Any other definition that attempts some nuance only allows the league to tamper with the outcome of games, and ensures inconsistent enforcement of a simple concept. Possession with two feet down.

I don't want calls slanted toward or against the Cowboys, I just want a clean game.

You and I are of similar opinion. They use slow mo to determine catch, but miss the Hawks receiver " butt on the ground" and didn't break the plane of the goal line....

 

[Kevinicus]

My point was more towards the 2 feet down with the ball in the end zone, vs a runner breaking the plane . In either case I think it should be a TD . All this possession/football move just muddies it up.

I think it's important to have a distinction about when someone has possession and when they do not. The NFL has done a poor job on handling this, but it's definitely something that is important to have.

 

[nathanlt]

I think it's important to have a distinction about when someone has possession and when they do not. The NFL has done a poor job on handling this, but it's definitely something that is important to have.

I think this is easy to explain. "If the player controls the ball and its movement, during the time that two feet (or any other part of the body other than the hands and feet) touch the ground inbounds, the player has possession. If the ball wobbles at any time during the establishment of possession, then additional contact with the ground after establishing control is required"

I wrote that explanation in two minutes. The league can't figure out how to write their insane definition over the last few years. In fact, they are NEVER going to be able to write it with any clarity. I hope they realize it soon.

 

[Kevinicus]

I think this is easy to explain. "If the player controls the ball and its movement, during the time that two feet (or any other part of the body other than the hands and feet) touch the ground inbounds, the player has possession. If the ball wobbles at any time during the establishment of possession, then additional contact with the ground after establishing control is required"

I wrote that explanation in two minutes. The league can't figure out how to write their insane definition over the last few years. In fact, they are NEVER going to be able to write it with any clarity. I hope they realize it soon.

How long is considered control? 1 second? Half a second? A tenth? Simply touching both hands? You have to consider the questions that will come up with various situations.

 

[nathanlt]

How long is considered control? 1 second? Half a second? A tenth? Simply touching both hands? You have to consider the questions that will come up with various situations.

"Long enough" is long enough to get two feet down, or one elbow, knee or more down, inbounds, with possession. Time is dependent on how long that takes. That covers ALL situations. It could take a minute if some fool was hopping around on one foot for 60 seconds, controlling the movement of the ball the entire time, then touched his second foot down inbounds.

 

[Kevinicus]

So if someone's feet and firmly planted on the ground and at the exact instance the ball hits his hands he is hit and the ball goes flying. Did he have control?

 

[nathanlt]

So if someone's feet and firmly planted on the ground and at the exact instance the ball hits his hands he is hit and the ball goes flying. Did he have control?

That is a bang bang play. In the eyes of the official, did he ever control the ball's movement? If it was the same instant, then definitively no, the ball's movement never stopped.