Chris Sims talks about Schoonmaker's non-catch

[starfrombirth]

Just one of many weird plays that didn't go our way. Never never seen this type of call reversed.

One of the posters pointed out (correctly I might add) that Schoonmaker was being tackled before the ball even got there. How come that wasn't called???

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Simms makes an interesting point, but I’m not sure not it’s really a loophole because there’s clear interference on the play. Schoonmaker was tackled at the point he caught it because he was already tackled before the ball even got to him. Although my understanding of the rule may be flawed. Consider two alternative scenarios:

1) Schoonmaker catches the ball with his knee on the ground outside the end zone. He pivots to reach the end zone. Before he makes it, a Philly defenders touches him down. We’re not having this conversation.

2) Schoonmaker is in the same position outside the end zone. The ball hits him in the hands. He bobbles it. A Philly defender makes contact, but doesn’t dislodge the ball. Schoonmaker falls back into the end zone and then gains possession. That would be a touchdown, right? For an officiating known for tick-tacky PI calls, it’s an odd non-call.

 

[MRV52]

The Cowboys are going to rewrite the rules on catches again. DES 2

 

[Pantone282C]

Refs are flaky.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Check this out........

BTW.......We pretty much shut down their WRs

The first video of the ball going out of bounds was a horrible call.

The second video is McCarthy and his hired team of dorks in the booth for not challenging.

 

[ak47kaehu]

And by the way if Dak had looked at the other side Cooks was open in the middle.....SMakers catch was harder because Ferguson didnt run his pick correctly..

Nope.....free Blitzer right in his face from cooks direction. Had he gone to his second read (cooks) he would have gotten decked!

 

[nalam]

The entire act of catching a pass includes possession, two feet inbounds, and surviving the ground. That should have been a touchdown. The ball broke the plane as he was in the process of completing his catch. But due to poorly written and enforced rules the NFL still struggles trying to define what a catch is to this day.

True . This is pathetic

 

[nalam]

The first video of the ball going out of bounds was a horrible call.

The second video is McCarthy and his hired team of dorks in the booth for not challenging.

Not challengeable as it was not a scoring or 1st down play

 

[McKDaddy]

Simms makes an interesting point but this has always been the case with any line of gain, not just the endzone. Otherwise, when going to the ground, just bobble the ball as you slide across the field and then you're only down where you establish possession, not where you were when the defender touched you and you were down on the ground. Wonder what his fix would be.

IMO, there is a difference between going to the ground in order to catch the ball and going to the ground after you catch the ball. If the first instance, it would seem that you have given yourself up at the point the catch is complete plus element of time & football move. Not necessary for defender to "down" you. In this instance, i would view the ball coming over the goal line as part of the catch, time & football move & thus rule TD.

In the second instance, say you stretch out for a ball & caught it with both feet off the ground stumble multiple steps & go to the ground. I would say you haven't given yourself up and that any move to further advance the ball before being downed by an opponent should count.

 

[BrassCowboy]

pay attention to the knee, don't mind the PI going on right there.

 

[links18]

This just shows me this game is won and lost by inches. Same with Dak stepping out before extending. It sucks because the game is completely different if either of those plays go the other way.

The two plays are not really on the same level. Schoonmaker's catch/non-catch was a fluke coupled with a bad call by the refs not to see the clear PI before the ball arrived. Dak showed a total lacknof awareness running out of bounds--something an 8 year vet should know not to do in that situation.

 

[Carson]

pay attention to the knee, don't mind the PI going on right there.

His knee is down because he is being tackled

 

[Brax]

Just one of many weird plays that didn't go our way. Never never seen this type of call reversed.

I guess CS doesn’t understand a catch and how it works it’s not that difficult for most

 

[raw2war]

The PI wasn’t called but that knee is down before the ball hits the white of the line. He runs that just a few inches more into the end zone….different game.

 

[big dog cowboy]

He runs that just a few inches more into the end zone….different game.

Dak throws to a wide open Cooks in the end zone....different game.

 

[Zman5]

If this happened outside of the football field, it could be considered sexual assault. The defender is literally fondling Schoon's balls while leaning into him before the ball got there. Yet there are some here who says this isn't PI because it wasn't called.

 

[MarcusRock]

IMO, there is a difference between going to the ground in order to catch the ball and going to the ground after you catch the ball. If the first instance, it would seem that you have given yourself up at the point the catch is complete plus element of time & football move. Not necessary for defender to "down" you. In this instance, i would view the ball coming over the goal line as part of the catch, time & football move & thus rule TD.

In the second instance, say you stretch out for a ball & caught it with both feet off the ground stumble multiple steps & go to the ground. I would say you haven't given yourself up and that any move to further advance the ball before being downed by an opponent should count.

If you're on your feet and stumble with multiple steps (3 at least), then by rule you aren't going to the ground in the first place and have a catch. When going to the ground applies, sometimes you have to go that low just to get a ball and aren't necessarily "giving yourself up" but have to get there just to haul the ball in. That happened to Cooks or Gallup yesterday where they had to go to the ground but weren't touched so they just rolled forward for a first down I think. But had they been touched, even before hauling the ball in, they're down by contact at that spot and don't get "continuation" until they are deemed to have caught it. That's just the rule. I don't think there's anything wrong with it; it's just that completed catch and down by contact don't layer each other in a nice and neat package but it still works.

 

[DuncanIso]

Just one of many weird plays that didn't go our way. Never never seen this type of call reversed.

One Knee is all you need for the catch.

 

[BrassCowboy]

His knee is down because he is being tackled

it was sarcasm meant to point out the obvious PI that was missed. Notice the ball has not even arrived yet......

 

[HanD]

One Knee is all you need for the catch.

True but that's not what he's talking about. He's saying if you land one knee and then lose the ball as you fall it isn't a catch. They should count when you actually complete the catch.

It's an interesting conversation but not worth it. Run the pattern another full yard and there isn't an ability for there to be questioned.