Was Moss Down?

[links18]

Technical question from last night's game: On the play that ended the Skins first drive in the 2nd half, Moss caught the ball on the ground (behind the 1st down marker, which is where all Campbell's 3rd down passes seemed to go). He juggled it, caught it and got up and started running. The refs called him down, even though he was not touched by a Giants player after he gained possession of the ball. He was touched by a Giants player, which caused him to go to the ground initially, but he did not have possession of the ball at that point and in fact the ball fluttered up into the air before it came back down where Moss made the reception.

The refs called him down, although he got up and started running. Zorn didn't challenge it and neither Madden nor Michaels seemed to think anything was out of the ordinary. Was this the correct call?

 

[Biggems]

he wasn't down because of the first defender, he never had full possession of the ball when the first defender had forced him to the ground......however, the only angle I got with the second defender was with the defender behind him. It looked like that defender touched him with his feet.....but that is a deceiving shot. I would have liked to have seen a sideline angle from both sides to confirm this. If the defender behind moss, never touched him, then moss was not down, and thus should have been allowed to get up and run.

I think the refs blew the whistle cause some thought it was incomplete....but after conferencing, realized that it was a catch. Unfortunately for the skins and moss, that whistle was a quick one.

oh well, who cares. i hate the skins and i am glad they got hosed on the call and lost the game. may the football Gods bring at least 8 more losses their way. 7-9 sounds about just right....and it keeps them from getting a top 5 juggernaut.

 

[YosemiteSam]

You cannot be down without possession. If you are not touched after gaining possession, you are not down. The ref clearly saw what happen as he declared it a catch. The reason I think he called him down is because a whistle blew. That declared the play dead where it was. While I don't know all this for a fact, it's the only logical answer I can come up with. Otherwise, he should have been able to run after the catch since this isn't college where down is down whether touched or not.

 

[Biggems]

You cannot be down without possession. If you are not touched after gaining possession, you are not down. The ref clearly saw what happen as he declared it a catch. The reason I think he called him down is because a whistle blew. That declared the play dead where it was. While I don't know all this for a fact, it's the only logical answer I can come up with. Otherwise, he should have been able to run after the catch since this isn't college where down is down whether touched or not.

so you saw the angle too, where he never had possession with the first defender.....and then gain possession and wasn't touched. i just wish we had a better angle of that second defender to know for sure if he was touched while laying on the ground.

 

[popcorn]

I think from what I saw he wasnt down. However, the Refs blew an early whistle. Therfore the play is not reviewable. You cant unblow a whistle becaues players stop playing.

 

[juck]

the ball hit the ground between his legs at one point

 

[superpunk]

They ruled he had possession. Therefore when his butt hit the ground while in contact with a defender he was down.

The thing the refs got wrong was ruling he had possession before he actually possessed the ball. If they had waited until he actually secured it, he could have had a TD.

 

[YosemiteSam]

the ball hit the ground between his legs at one point

Really, I saw the replay several times and not once did I see the ball actually hit the ground.

 

[rtrn2zn]

To put it in another perspective, if a runner is hit and stripped, then goes to the ground, and gets up to recover his own fumble untouched, he is allowed to advance the ball.

 

[tomson75]

Really, I saw the replay several times and not once did I see the ball actually hit the ground.

That's because it didn't.

 

[Hoofbite]

the ball hit the ground between his legs at one point

no it didn't.


And the refs did get it wrong but you can't really blame them. In the heat of the moment when a guy is knocked to the ground, catch or not, they blow the play dead.

Would have been a sweet play to see played out but oh well.

 

[JonJon]

The ball never hit the ground and Moss was not touched while in possession of the catch. It should have been a TD for the Commanders because Moss was on his way into the endzone. The refs blew that one.

 

[TheCount]

the ball hit the ground between his legs at one point

No. It didn't.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I don't think the call was made correctly but then I'm not an NFL referee.

 

[links18]

Really what got me was that neither Madden nor know-it-all Michaels even questioned the call at all. Not a peep out them. Not very high quality commentary in my opinion (if such a thing exists).

 

[dueyhemlock]

Yep, no ground. He trapped the ball with his butt.

Let's see:

Moss catches/traps the ball using his butt.
David Tyre catches/traps the ball using his head.
Maybe Crayton should try catching/trapping the ball using his mouth.


Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know Crayton is an awesome #3 WR / good #2 WR and I'm thankful he is healthy going into the season.......just taken a little JAB at him.

 

[dargonking999]

I think the questin at hand is what did the refs call.

Intially the ref who blew the whistle was calling the pass incomplete, but then another referee came in and called it a catch. Unfortunalty for Moss because the play was blown dead as in incomplete he was robbed of a TD.

 

[tomson75]

I think the questin at hand is what did the refs call.

Intially the ref who blew the whistle was calling the pass incomplete, but then another referee came in and called it a catch. Unfortunalty for Moss because the play was blown dead as in incomplete he was robbed of a TD.

Well the new rules state that when a player has possession in the air, he must retain it when he hits the ground or is hit by another player and then hits the ground.

I think in this case, the refs ruled that he had possession and lost it when he was hit or when he hit the ground...even though he never had possession until after he was hit and on the ground untouched.

So, in essence, they missed two calls.

1. that he had possession in the air before he was hit

2. that the ball hit the ground

They really need to get the damn rules figured out. Adding/subtracting/altering rules EVERY year is having a negative effect on the sport IMO.

 

[dargonking999]

Well the new rules state that when a player has possession in the air, he must retain it when he hits the ground or is hit by another player and then hits the ground.

I think in this case, the refs ruled that he had possession and lost it when he was hit or when he hit the ground...even though he never had possession until after he was hit and on the ground untouched.

So, in essence, they missed two calls.

1. that he had possession in the air before he was hit

2. that the ball hit the ground

They really need to get the damn rules figured out. Adding/subtracting/altering rules EVERY year is having a negative effect on the sport IMO.

No matter how "figured" out the rules are, there will always be "human error" and the refs will always make a mistake. The refs aren't watching the game from a TV set with camera angles. There on the field watching things coming at them at high speed. Refs have a split second to make a decison. Sometimes they make the wrong one and it costs a team an opportunity. But thats what you have to live with.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

I thought it could have been some antonio freeman type ish but they said he was down.