Did the Commanders really Beat the Buccaneers

[Phoenix-Talon]

I Know, the Commanders officially won the game. But is everyone buying that controversial decision that (in my opinion) was the back breaking play in the game.

For those of you who didn't see the game (I can't imagine not watching it) ...

...Shepherd (Buccaneers) hauled in a 40-yard strike from Buc' sQB Chris Simms as he hit the end zone, took two steps and hit the ground with one knee as he was tackled from behind. However, the ball momentarily slipped from Shepherd’s grasp as his torso hit the ground, and that was enough for an incompletion. The Bucs challenged but Referee Mike Carey explained that a receiver must maintain possession of the ball when he hits the ground if he is falling in the act of catching the pass.

Observation: I watched close enough to see that it was not the tackle that displodged the ball after the reception ...it was indeed the ground.

I actually wanted the NFCE representative team to win, but In all fairness, I saw something different than the Official did. With so much on the line, I saw a perfect throw to a receiver who obviously made separation from the Commanders defender, and a desparate tackle of a completed pass that broke the plain of the Goal while the player was in the air.

Anyone else agree/disagree?

 

[Billy Bullocks]

I really dont know. I hate the Skins and I hoped they would lose...I kind of agree with you. It looked like a catch to me.

Washingotn just better hope they offense can muster more than 10 points (3 really) against Seattle, or a soft Seahawks team will beat them.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

It was almost a great reception but it wasnt. Simms looks like he is gonna be money!

 

[Qwickdraw]

The argument about the catch in the endzone was that he was still bobbling the ball all of the way to the ground. It looked like a catch to me but there was another questionable call made the difference to me.

Marcus Washington was "down by contact" prior to fumbling it to Taylor who took it house for a TD. In the replay you can clearly see it but they missed it.
Taht made the difference of 7 points in the game seeing as how neither team could score on offense..

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

The argument about the catch in the endzone was that he was still bobbling the ball all of the way to the ground. It looked like a catch to me but there was another questionable call made the difference to me.

Marcus Washington was "down by contact" prior to fumbling it to Taylor who took it house for a TD. In the replay you can clearly see it but they missed it.
Taht made the difference of 7 points in the game seeing as how neither team could score on offense..

Sure, I rememeber that play also! Perhaps the NFL should double the number of officials on the field during playoffs and the SB. Too much Is on the line based on how one person reads a particular play.

 

[movinonout]

I Know, the Commanders officially won the game. But is everyone buying that controversial decision that (in my opinion) was the back breaking play in the game.

For those of you who didn't see the game (I can't imagine not watching it) ...

...Shepherd (Buccaneers) hauled in a 40-yard strike from Buc' sQB Chris Simms as he hit the end zone, took two steps and hit the ground with one knee as he was tackled from behind. However, the ball momentarily slipped from Shepherd’s grasp as his torso hit the ground, and that was enough for an incompletion. The Bucs challenged but Referee Mike Carey explained that a receiver must maintain possession of the ball when he hits the ground if he is falling in the act of catching the pass.

Observation: I watched close enough to see that it was not the tackle that displodged the ball after the reception ...it was indeed the ground.

I actually wanted the NFCE representative team to win, but In all fairness, I saw something different than the Official did. With so much on the line, I saw a perfect throw to a receiver who obviously made separation from the Commanders defender, and a desparate tackle of a completed pass that broke the plain of the Goal while the player was in the air.

Anyone else agree/disagree?

Oh we won. Just watch Saturday and see us in Seattle.

Reminds me of that song....Jealous, Jealous again.......

 

[Jarv]

I guess Gibbs won't be sending those tapes to the NFL offices...

 

[Cowboy4ever]

You know, I been a cowboys fan for over 30 years which means i been a skin hater about the same time. But there comes a time you have to give a team credit. The skins made the playoffs cause they played when they had to and we didn't. simple as that. Now that being said, a team, i dont care who it is,,should NEVER win a playoff game with 122 yards total offense, but they did. They look like they have the mojo this year and could do the unthinkable and represent the NFC in the SB. I woldn't count this team out of any game. They just find a way to win. Geez I hate them skins.

 

[RoyWilliams]

The rule changed 2-3 years ago, even if the ground causes a player to lose control on a pass play it's ruled incomplete.

 

[Bach]

I guess Gibbs won't be sending those tapes to the NFL offices...

His whining and crying has paid off. The last 6 weeks he's gotten just about all the calls, ala the '80's.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

According to the scoreboard they did. ***** happens.

 

[SultanOfSix]

I thought it was another BS call.

When a running back has the ball, and is tackled and the ground causes the ball to pop out, it's not a fumble.

In the case of the Tampa game, the receiver caught the ball, did NOT bobble it, took a step and then was tackled with both his knees hitting the ground, and when he landed and hit the ground, the ball came out, yet it was ruled an incomplete pass.

In both cases, he had possession, yet in one case the ruling is supposedly different.

The question is a matter of possession. Yet, somehow, this supposed rule is telling me that when a receiver is catching the ball in the air, he has to maintain possession until he hits the ground and when he hits the ground the ball cannot come loose. Even, this wasn't the case in the TB game because he took a step prior to being tackled and the ball coming loose.

 

[kingwhicker]

Don't care- they advanced, that's all I know. Didn't see it. I watched a total of maybe 5 minutes of the entire Wild Card round, not one second of either NFC game- enough for me to say I'll watch even less of the rest.

 

[MDCowboy]

His whining and crying has paid off. The last 6 weeks he's gotten just about all the calls, ala the '80's.

I been thinking the same thing about how the 'skins of the 80s would get all of the calls and it appears to be going that way again!

The 'skins are starting to look alot like the 2000 Ravens. It seemed like that team caught lightening in a bottle and the 'skins appear to be doing the same. Very good defense, getting all of the bounces and has been getting all of the breaks.

 

[MaineBoy]

It was a catch...he did not bobble the ball on the way down and his knee was down in the endzone while he had the ball....then he hit the ground and the ball came loose...BS call and couldn't believe they didnt give him the TD after replay...

 

[Hoov]

with the questionable calls, it still looked to me like washington set the tempo and for the most part controlled the game. they were dictating how things would go, TB came out flat and got behind, washington was able to play ball control and protect the lead.

I didnt bet all year and put 50 on TB, thought that was the best pic of all the favorites cause they were only giving up 1 point, washington suprised me, thought they would be tired and emotionally spent from all the efforts and pressure to win 5 in a row to make playoffs.

If washington beats seattle, i think they could beat carolina or chicago.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

I thought it was another BS call.

When a running back has the ball, and is tackled and the ground causes the ball to pop out, it's not a fumble.

In the case of the Tampa game, the receiver caught the ball, did NOT bobble it, took a step and then was tackled with both his knees hitting the ground, and when he landed and hit the ground, the ball came out, yet it was ruled an incomplete pass.

In both cases, he had possession, yet in one case the ruling is supposedly different.

The question is a matter of possession. Yet, somehow, this supposed rule is telling me that when a receiver is catching the ball in the air, he has to maintain possession until he hits the ground and when he hits the ground the ball cannot come loose. Even, this wasn't the case in the TB game because he took a step prior to being tackled and the ball coming loose.

I'm reading the situation like you are.

 

[joseephuss]

I thought it was a good call(no catch) from my understanding of the rule.

The refs blew the call on the fumble return for TD. He was down and the replay showed it.

The refs also blew the call on Arrington fumbling at the end of his interception return. I think the call on that play may have contributed to the call on the other fumble. They blew the whistle quickly on Arrington's play. Perhaps that encouraged the refs to hold off on the whistle during the fumble return for a TD.

Bad calls happen in every game. There were bad calls in the Pitt/Cincy game as well. Tampa could not move the ball. That is why they lost.

 

[Henry]

In slow motion it sure looks like a catch. Two steps and a knee. However, in real time he has the ball for about a second before it pops out. If that's considered a catch then Crayton caught and fumbled the ball after Taylor hit him in Week 2.

The WR has to maintain posession for at least 2 seconds. I don't think he did in this case.

 

[joseephuss]

In slow motion it sure looks like a catch. Two steps and a knee. However, in real time he has the ball for about a second before it pops out. If that's considered a catch then Crayton caught and fumbled the ball after Taylor hit him in Week 2.

The WR has to maintain posession for at least 2 seconds. I don't think he did in this case.

There are some strange nuances to receptions and control. I have seen catches in the end zone that would not be catches in the rest of the playing field. Jeremy Shockey caught a TD against Seattle where he was hit and it looked has if one leg did not touch the ground before the ball popped out of his hands. The refs ruled his second foot just grazed the ground prio to the ball popping out. He probably held the ball less time than the guy from Tampa did.

Chad Johnson looked to catch the ball yesterday that was ruled incomplete. If he had been in the endzone, they probably would have said it was a TD.