Shockey's 'TD' should have been overturned

[Michael88Irvin]

Shockey's TD at the end of the first half against Seattle was clearly not a TD if you look at all the angles... everyone was arguing over whether or not he got his second foot down ('toe swiped the turf') or not...

If you watch the Shockey 'TD' in Slo Mo (TIVO gives you super slow mo in this case - slo mo on top of their slo mo - and they showed every angle), you will see that the ball is already flying out (from that BRUTAL hit) a couple of frames before his second foot comes down and (possibly) 'swipes the turf' (which, by the way that foot flies up, it is unlikely to have done so, but doesn't matter anyway cuz the ball was gone while you can still see his leg on the way down and had not had a chance to touch the turf even if it did swipe it).

Someone please post the slo mo video of the front and back angles.

The NFL is covering their *** now that the cat is out of the bag.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

It was almost like they used the "forced out of bounds" rule to rule on that Shockey TD.

He was hit so hard and sent horizontally that if he wasnt hit so hard he would have come down with both feet on ground. LOL

I hope ROY gets to hit him as hard or HARDER!!!

 

[Redball Express]

..is that the NFL admits it made the wrong calls in this game but they are calls that were made against the losing team and if removed, would have given the same results..Jints loss.

So this does nothing to help anything except to valid Mike Holmgrens position on the Competition Committee of being right about it.

Nobody cares except Mike. For whatever that is worth.

Now..show me the NFL admitting they blew a call in a game where the play clearly impacted the actual outcome of the game on the last drive or last play or whatever..then we'd have something to talk about.

But even though we've all seen this happen over the years, the NFL will never admit to that happening, regardless of the number of replays we all watch.

That would really make it tough on the league and the refs to admit error that might have cost a team a playoff spot or advancing in the playoffs or winning a championship.

So tough, that it will never happen.

So who cares about this issue..?

Only those who lost money in Vegas I guess.

parcellswaterboy

 

[cowboys101]

***Now..show me the NFL admitting they blew a call in a game where the play clearly impacted the actual outcome of the game on the last drive or last play or whatever..then we'd have something to talk about.

But even though we've all seen this happen over the years, the NFL will never admit to that happening, regardless of the number of replays we all watch.

That would really make it tough on the league and the refs to admit error that might have cost a team a playoff spot or advancing in the playoffs or winning a championship.

**

the NFL did admit that the Lions should have scored a TD at the end of the Bucs game and should have won.

 

[vicjagger]

..is that the NFL admits it made the wrong calls in this game

The NFL has stated that they did not make the wrong calls. It was Holmgren who stated that they told him they did, and now he's being threatened with a fine.

“The report that the NFL informed the Seahawks of officiating mistakes on two Giants touchdown receptions is inaccurate,” NFL Vice President of Public relations Greg Aiello said. “Our officiating department never discussed with the Seahawks the Amani Toomer touchdown reception, which was properly called. The Jeremy Shockey touchdown catch at the end of the first half was not overturned, because the referee determined that there was insufficient visual evidence to reverse the call.”

This however, does not change the fact that Shockey did not score. It was an NFL gift, just like the extra home game.

 

[nathanlt]

My wife and I were discussing this very play. Why does Shockey have to establish two feet at all?

How many running backs get a touchdown the INSTANT they stretch the ball across the goal line?

I say, if he has control of the ball in the end zone, it is a touchdown, regardless of whether or not his feet are on the ground.

Now, the ironic thing is, on a out pass just barely past the goal line, the reciever can have two feet in the end zone, and fall out of bounds while catching the ball.
The ball NEVER crosses the plain, yet it is a touchdown!

Where's the logic?

 

[aikemirv]

My wife and I were discussing this very play. Why does Shockey have to establish two feet at all?

How many running backs get a touchdown the INSTANT they stretch the ball across the goal line?

I say, if he has control of the ball in the end zone, it is a touchdown, regardless of whether or not his feet are on the ground.

Now, the ironic thing is, on a out pass just barely past the goal line, the reciever can have two feet in the end zone, and fall out of bounds while catching the ball.
The ball NEVER crosses the plain, yet it is a touchdown!

Where's the logic?

I don't think two feet is the rule anymore anyway, in the open field it is a "football move" what ever that is - stupid rule.

I think if he has possession in the endzone it is a TD - I don't see the significance of 2 feet down either - that is not the rule anymore I don't believe.

 

[speedkilz88]

My wife and I were discussing this very play. Why does Shockey have to establish two feet at all?

How many running backs get a touchdown the INSTANT they stretch the ball across the goal line?

I say, if he has control of the ball in the end zone, it is a touchdown, regardless of whether or not his feet are on the ground.

Now, the ironic thing is, on a out pass just barely past the goal line, the reciever can have two feet in the end zone, and fall out of bounds while catching the ball.
The ball NEVER crosses the plain, yet it is a touchdown!

Where's the logic?

A rb already has possession of the ball, its a run!

A receiver has to come down with both feet in the endzone to make it a catch, its the rule and has always been the rule with the one exception being the force out rule.

If the receiver is already in the endzone why would he have to break the plane? Thats just stupid.

 

[nathanlt]

A rb already has possession of the ball, its a run!

A receiver has to come down with both feet in the endzone to make it a catch, its the rule and has always been the rule with the one exception being the force out rule.

If the receiver is already in the endzone why would he have to break the plane? Thats just stupid.

I know... the reciever has established control of the ball in the end zone. He should not have to hold it long enough to have two feet down. He had control of the ball, and was no where near being pushed out of bounds. Therefore, touchdown!

 

[lane]

it was a touchdown.

great call by the refs.

 

[AdamJT13]

Now, the ironic thing is, on a out pass just barely past the goal line, the reciever can have two feet in the end zone, and fall out of bounds while catching the ball.
The ball NEVER crosses the plain, yet it is a touchdown!

Where's the logic?

The plane of the goal line extends out of bounds.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

My wife and I were discussing this very play. Why does Shockey have to establish two feet at all?

How many running backs get a touchdown the INSTANT they stretch the ball across the goal line?

I say, if he has control of the ball in the end zone, it is a touchdown, regardless of whether or not his feet are on the ground.

Now, the ironic thing is, on a out pass just barely past the goal line, the reciever can have two feet in the end zone, and fall out of bounds while catching the ball.
The ball NEVER crosses the plain, yet it is a touchdown!

Where's the logic?

Your logic is flawed. What would happen if a cornerback jumped up and caught the ball yet never got two feet down? In the NFL, two feet equals a catch. You need two feet, or an elbow or knee to establish possession.

 

[proline]

They just showed the replay on HBO's Inside the NFL, from an angle that was not available during the original broadcast. They only showed it once, and they didn't discuss the play specifically, but to me it looked like he did touch the turf with his second toe as his leg swung down and back. I'm pretty sure the ref's don't have access to that video during the game, though, since it wasn't part of the FOX broadcast.

 

[AdamJT13]

They just showed the replay on HBO's Inside the NFL, from an angle that was not available during the original broadcast. They only showed it once, and they didn't discuss the play specifically, but to me it looked like he did touch the turf with his second toe as his leg swung down and back. I'm pretty sure the ref's don't have access to that video during the game, though, since it wasn't part of the FOX broadcast.

From the high-angle end zone replay, I'm certain you can tell that his toe brushed the turf. As his foot swings down and brushes the turf, you can see a dark streak in the turf from the rubber pellets that come up from under the fake grass.

The question, though, is whether he had established possession long enough for it to be a touchdown. I think he did, but it would depend on how the rule is interpreted.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Remember last year the NFL admitted Key's amazing catch in Seattle on Monday Night should have been reviewed and overturned. The NFL does admit bad calls even when they affected the outcome.

 

[Michael88Irvin]

From the high-angle end zone replay, I'm certain you can tell that his toe brushed the turf. As his foot swings down and brushes the turf, you can see a dark streak in the turf from the rubber pellets that come up from under the fake grass.

The question, though, is whether he had established possession long enough for it to be a touchdown. I think he did, but it would depend on how the rule is interpreted.

The second toe touching is irrelevant as the ball is already flying out (from that BRUTAL hit) a couple of frames before his second foot comes down and 'swipes the turf' ... watch carefully and you will see the ball was gone while his second leg is still on it's way down toward the turf.

One foot down then fumbling is not a catch anywhere else on the field, is not a catch when reviewing sideline plays, so how is it a catch in the middle of the endzone?

Shockey meet Roy :clubbed:

 

[AdamJT13]

Remember last year the NFL admitted Key's amazing catch in Seattle on Monday Night should have been reviewed and overturned. The NFL does admit bad calls even when they affected the outcome.

Keyshawn's touchdown should have counted either way, since the defender forced him to get only one foot down inbounds. But there's a flaw in the NFL rules, since the referee would have had to rule at the time that Keyshawn was forced out of bounds, even though the referee thought he landed inbounds (which was logical, since Keyshawn jumped straight up from almost the middle of the end zone and landed about 2 yards from the end line after being hit by the defender). If they had gone to replay and saw that Keyshawn got only one foot down, the fact that he was forced out by the defender would have been irrelevant, since the referee didn't call it at the time.

So basically, if a referee thinks that a receiver came down inbounds even after being pushed by a defender and rules it a catch (and therefore doesn't signal a force-out), that's WORSE for the offensive team than if the receiver had come down out of bounds, in which case the ref would rule it a force out (which could not be challenged). In the first case, the defense can challenge and have it ruled an incomplete pass (since the force-out wasn't called), but in the second, it cannot.

 

[AdamJT13]

The second toe touching is irrelevant as the ball is already flying out (from that BRUTAL hit) a couple of frames before his second foot comes down and 'swipes the turf' ... watch carefully and you will see the ball was gone while his second leg is still on it's way down toward the turf.

It didn't look like the ball came out before his foot touched when I watched it. I've got it Tivo'd, so I'll watch it again.

 

[Michael88Irvin]

It didn't look like the ball came out before his foot touched when I watched it. I've got it Tivo'd, so I'll watch it again.

Watch the front angle first to know when the ball comes out as it relates to the HIT (you can see the second leg coming down, but not the foot as it approaches the turf) this will, however, give you the reference needed when viewing the rear angle and watching the timing of the hit (watch in slo mo) and the second leg and foot is still coming down .

I just watched it again and Moose reiterates that "he hits him so hard he takes him off his feet before he gets his left foot is down".

So I guess the question is, what specifically is the rule for a 'catch' in the endzone? IS it different than elsewhere on the field?... cuz if the rule is the same in the endzone as far as establishing possession and two feet down, then it is not catch.

 

[nathanlt]

The plane of the goal line extends out of bounds.

So, you're telling me that a runner can establish his body in bounds, stretch the ball out of bounds, to the outside of the front pylon and across this imaginary plane to avoid a defender, and it's a TOUCHDOWN???

I find it hard to believe, it does not make sense.