PDA

View Full Version : Mike Pereira: Explanation of Greg Jennings' catch


Str8 Killa
12-04-2011, 09:13 PM
A lot of people don't seem to understand the rule regarding maintaining control of the ball as you go to the round. To clarify:

Jennings TD explanation: I'm sure there will be some discussion about receiver Greg Jennings' 20-yard touchdown reception in the third quarter. Jennings appeared to lose control of the ball as he ran out of the back of the end zone. Some will wonder if Jennings completed the infamous "process" of the catch. But as former NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira pointed out on Twitter, the "process" rule applies only to plays in which the receiver falls to the ground. And Jennings did have control with the ball in his left hand before losing it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/35402/rapid-reaction-packers-38-giants-35

So the right call was made on the field. Do you guys agree with this rule?

J-Mike88
12-04-2011, 10:23 PM
I wouldn't define that as a catch and I love Jennings.
I don't care what the ******** language is in the rulebook.

That was NOT a catch.
Calvin Johnson's last year WAS a catch.

BaLLiN
12-04-2011, 10:38 PM
not a catch, the ball was moving and the only explanation they had to the completion was that his left hand demonstrated "some" control, well even if that happened he only had the ball with one foot down with "some" possession before Amukamara batted it out. Not saying it wouldve changed whether this was a win or loss for the giants, but that was not a touchdown.

mqtirishfan
12-04-2011, 11:00 PM
He seemed to demonstrate enough control toward the end of the catch for it to be a TD to me. He clearly had possession of it in his left hand after the first couple steps.

Bulldogs
12-04-2011, 11:32 PM
http://memecrunch.com/meme/2US/nfldc/image.png

Iamcanadian
12-05-2011, 12:39 AM
I don't care what explanation the NFL gives for receptions vis a vie 'the process', the rule absolutely stinks.
I completely hate people who complain about rules, penalties etc. etc. We are not privy to meetings the referees have with teams, showing the distinction say between a holding versus a non holding call on a running or a passing play, ditto for many other calls, however in my 55 odd years of following football intently, I have never seen a rule so ridiculous as the 'process rule'.
Since I started following football at any level, it has always been the case that the ground cannot cause a fumble, yet the NFL chooses to have a rule which now says otherwise. Then you have the contradiction when running the ball, that still states, the ground cannot cause a fumble, worse, yet, is the rule that as soon as a runner crosses the goal line, the 'process' ends and any fumble is not counted. How can you have completely contradictory rules for runners vs receivers, it's total absurdity and sooner or later the Super Bowl will be lost on a 'process call' and the uproar will be so great that the NFL will change the rule the next day. They can hire 10 people to explain this garbage rule but in the end, the absurdity will cause the NFL to get rid of this rule.

kalbears13
12-05-2011, 01:43 AM
The only catch I saw was when Greg Jennings was carrying the team on his back doe.

Mike Pereira seems to jump to defend the officials even if it means bending the rules which is dumb.

ChiFan24
12-05-2011, 02:02 AM
He eventually had control of the ball in his one hand, but not with two feet in bounds. Nobody seems to mention that aspect of it. Shouldn't have counted.

BloodBrother
12-05-2011, 03:20 AM
gerg jennings

gerg

whatadai
12-05-2011, 03:27 AM
That was a touchdown and he had control before he stepped out of bounds. I really don't see what argument could be made against it.

wogitalia
12-05-2011, 04:25 AM
Since I started following football at any level, it has always been the case that the ground cannot cause a fumble, yet the NFL chooses to have a rule which now says otherwise. Then you have the contradiction when running the ball, that still states, the ground cannot cause a fumble, worse, yet, is the rule that as soon as a runner crosses the goal line, the 'process' ends and any fumble is not counted. How can you have completely contradictory rules for runners vs receivers, it's total absurdity and sooner or later the Super Bowl will be lost on a 'process call' and the uproar will be so great that the NFL will change the rule the next day. They can hire 10 people to explain this garbage rule but in the end, the absurdity will cause the NFL to get rid of this rule.

Not sure how you can watch and follow for 55 years and not know the difference between a fumble and a catch and that they are two entirely different things that are governed by two entirely separate sections of the rule book but keep going that way if you wish.

Really it's rather simple, you have always had to catch the ball "through the ground" in the nearly 10 years that I have been following the game. That is the "process" rule. On top of which, the ground absolutely can cause a fumble in the case where you are not down by contact, I forget who it was but there was an example earlier this year I'm sure you can find if you want of that happening.

If you are downed by contact then it can't be a fumble because the play is over when you are downed. Not overly complex.

Neither is that the play is over when the plane of the goal line is broken by a running player, again this has always been the case since I've been following.

Saints-Tigers
12-05-2011, 04:32 AM
Not a catch, and they got jobbed when the Giants got flagged for Jermichael Finley pushing off, turning a 4th and 15 or something into a first down.

Wasn't a big fan of either calls.

prock
12-05-2011, 04:56 AM
http://memecrunch.com/meme/2US/nfldc/image.png

I like this guy.

Rosebud
12-05-2011, 08:57 AM
He did at the very end get control of the ball with his one hand cupping the end of it. That's legit control. Now I didn't see whether his feet were already out of bounds at that point, was working out during the game, but he did get control of the ball for a second there.

Miaoww
12-05-2011, 11:53 AM
Not a catch. MP is defending his boys as he always does.

Damix
12-05-2011, 04:38 PM
So if Prince tackles him while stripping the ball, instead of just stripping the ball, it would not be considered a catch?

BaLLiN
12-05-2011, 08:34 PM
He eventually had control of the ball in his one hand, but not with two feet in bounds. Nobody seems to mention that aspect of it. Shouldn't have counted.

So if Prince tackles him while stripping the ball, instead of just stripping the ball, it would not be considered a catch?

Like i said, He did not have two feet in with the control that they described as "some" before Prince batted it out of his hands.

Edit:

pretty clear that his second foot did not come down before prince knocked it out. There's a clear point where he gains the "some" control they described and only one foot was down during that duration.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Aaron-Rodgers-hits-Greg-Jennings-for-incomplete-?urn=nfl-wp13178


Also, is this a catch?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d824c71fd/Ballard-s-catch-a-touchdown

Ballard's front knee was in first, then his entire knee hits the line. MP said TD, refs said no.

wogitalia
12-05-2011, 08:53 PM
So if Prince tackles him while stripping the ball, instead of just stripping the ball, it would not be considered a catch?

It would become a very interesting one and perhaps a little ridiculous had he taken him to ground.

BaLLiN
12-05-2011, 08:58 PM
I don't get why theres a difference if he was taken to the ground...

wogitalia
12-05-2011, 10:22 PM
I don't get why theres a difference if he was taken to the ground...

Because the process of a catch only relates to a player going to ground to make a catch, if they don't go to ground then it is a catch once they have control and feet down and in the case of the endzone the play is over as soon as that happens because the ball will have broken the plane.

So basically it's a different rule set dependent on what the catcher does.

BaLLiN
12-06-2011, 03:36 PM
http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2011/12/05/sports/web_photos/ballard2163748--415x215.jpg






Angle 2:



https://p.twimg.com/Af66yVtCQAAEA_e.jpg

(10 characters)

ShutDwn
12-06-2011, 03:46 PM
You have to maintain possession going to the ground but not if you stay up? Huh?

J-Mike88
12-06-2011, 03:48 PM
Because the process of a catch only relates to a player going to ground to make a catch, if they don't go to ground then it is a catch once they have control and feet down and in the case of the endzone the play is over as soon as that happens because the ball will have broken the plane.

So basically it's a different rule set dependent on what the catcher does.
I know. Their rules, wording, are ****.
THen you look at a play where a RUNNER, like Reggie Bush, takes off along the sideline at the 5 yard line, flies thru the air over the OUT OF BOUNDS, he then reaches the ball to just go over the pylon..... then he lands OUT OF BOUNDS beside the end zone and the ball GOES FLYING OUT when he hits the ground.

That's ruled a touchdown, yet a guy with 4 feet down in the end zone, can somehow have it ruled NOT a catch if he eventually rolls to the ground even out of bounds after 4 steps, and the ball comes out. It's nonsense. Reminds me of the BCS.

ChiFan24
12-06-2011, 04:43 PM
I know. Their rules, wording, are ****.
THen you look at a play where a RUNNER, like Reggie Bush, takes off along the sideline at the 5 yard line, flies thru the air over the OUT OF BOUNDS, he then reaches the ball to just go over the pylon..... then he lands OUT OF BOUNDS beside the end zone and the ball GOES FLYING OUT when he hits the ground.

That's ruled a touchdown, yet a guy with 4 feet down in the end zone, can somehow have it ruled NOT a catch if he eventually rolls to the ground even out of bounds after 4 steps, and the ball comes out. It's nonsense. Reminds me of the BCS.

Because Reggie Bush had the ball in the first place. The receiver might not have. I don't understand why this is such a big deal to some people. You have to establish what is a catch and what isn't a catch and unfortunately you end up with cases like Calvin Johnson's "drop," but it's a necessary evil.

BaLLiN
12-06-2011, 04:48 PM
found this, http://giantskickoff.com/2011/12/06/evidence-the-refs-helped-packers-beat-the-ny-giants/

on the greg jennings catch it depends on when you think he gains "some" possession, but i think its either as his right foot hits the ground while his left is slightly off. Then Prince bats it out before the left returns to the ground. One foot with ball = no completion.

there was a ton of PI on nicks the entire night, that was crystal clear, and it wasn't called. It was called on Prince most likely because he wasn't as sneaky with it, and Williams because Finley is a cry baby who wrapped both his hands around him to move him and get separation. If Finley doesn't get that its 4th down and 20ish, if jennings doesn't get that (which Prince really didn't prohibit jennings hand moreso he had his arm just out there) its 3rd and 8 on their 25ish. Driver pushes off of Webster, maybe steps out (can't tell from that angle) and nothing is called.

My point is, the giants played a great game and so did the packers. The sad thing was that the calls gave the packers a 12 point swing (packers wouldve had to kick two field goals because both driver's and jenning's TD's and giants wouldve had a touchdown instead of a field goal for ballard's TD catch). **** you Mr. Referee.

TimmG6376
12-06-2011, 05:04 PM
As long as we're talking what-ifs don't forget about the retry Crosby should have gotten on the FG.

Driver pushed off? Really? Just watched it again and the Giants DB clearly extends his arms into Driver's chest jolting him backwards. At that point even if he does step out (which isn't clear) he has the right to re-establish.

Crazy_Chris
12-06-2011, 05:12 PM
I'd say Jennings had Possesion of the ball right before his left foot came down, and then went another step before the ball was slapped away. It's pretty close but that looks like a catch to me.

However that was definatly a TD catch by ballard.

wogitalia
12-06-2011, 07:29 PM
THen you look at a play where a RUNNER, like Reggie Bush, takes off along the sideline at the 5 yard line, flies thru the air over the OUT OF BOUNDS, he then reaches the ball to just go over the pylon..... then he lands OUT OF BOUNDS beside the end zone and the ball GOES FLYING OUT when he hits the ground.

You are talking about two entirely different things. A runner is in possession of the ball, if a receiver catches the ball and then becomes a runner they are under the same rules.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand that "catching" and "running" are two entirely separate rulesets. They are as related as the rules on kicks and offensive line play, they are just entirely separate facets of the game, the rules are in place so that they can adjudicate on the different parts of the game, not to eliminate the different parts of the game and make them uniform.

A WR becomes a runner after they complete a catch, Jennings completed a catch, which is why he became a runner and thus had the touchdown because the ball had broken the plane.

J-Mike88
12-06-2011, 07:58 PM
You are talking about two entirely different things. A runner is in possession of the ball, if a receiver catches the ball and then becomes a runner they are under the same rules.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand that "catching" and "running" are two entirely separate rulesets.
No kidding they are separate rule sets.
I'm talking common sense.
As a die-hard Packer fan, I agree that Greg Jennings catch should not have been ruled a catch, same as Andrew Quarless TD vs the Vikings early last year, which was a big play in a big game.

But using common sense, Calvin Johnson's should have been. And Charles Woodson with the Raiders in 2002 did force a fumble on Brady in the snow tuck rule bogus. I like common sense, not BS technicalities..... if it smells like, looks like, tastes like, then it is.

Jennings never had full control of the catch here. Most Packer fans disagree. The lovely thing is, it counted.

ChiFan24
12-06-2011, 11:13 PM
No kidding they are separate rule sets.
I'm talking common sense.
As a die-hard Packer fan, I agree that Greg Jennings catch should not have been ruled a catch, same as Andrew Quarless TD vs the Vikings early last year, which was a big play in a big game.

But using common sense, Calvin Johnson's should have been. And Charles Woodson with the Raiders in 2002 did force a fumble on Brady in the snow tuck rule bogus. I like common sense, not BS technicalities..... if it smells like, looks like, tastes like, then it is.

Jennings never had full control of the catch here. Most Packer fans disagree. The lovely thing is, it counted.

Fine, let's use "common sense" instead of an objective, concrete set of rules. The number of arguments like this would grow exponentially because everything would be subjective. You need to have a rule in place.