"It DID move"

[Bryan]

Of greater concern was Thomas Davis' hit on Davante Adams after an INT. Davis showed remorse, but he should have been kicked out of the game. Really, with that type of hit there should be ejections. Eventually the NFL will go the college way and do more ejections, more immediate punishments on those hits. I have no problem with that.

I thought it was funny that the Packers offense immediately went South as soon as Adams left the game, yet later on in the game Davis made a nice tackle on a 3rd and short play to stop a Packers drive. The Panthers had difficulty covering Adams in the 1st half, so they basically gave up 15 yards of field position in exchange for not having to deal with Adams in the 2nd half. I thought it was strange that the announcers made no mention of the possibility of Davis being ejected; as if his continued presence and impact on the game was no big deal. What Davis did was terrible.

[MarbleEye]

If Vince McMahon does revive his old XFL in some form (as is being rumored now) I hope he plays without replay review, and lets the calls stand as made on the field. The game is slow enough now (waaaaayyy too slow) to have 12 replay reviews in every game slowing it down even more.

I'm not a big soccer fan, but one thing I do appreciate when I do watch a game, is that each half of a game (as televised right now) is basically commercial free. I don't know how anyone can even go to an NFL game in person today with all the replay reviews and the "media time outs" for endless runs of TV commercials.

[Citizen]

Yesterday was yet another example of why I and so many others are giving up on the NFL. I've been watching pro football for 50 years. But thanks to the tuck rule, I no longer know what a fumble is. Thanks to the "process" rule (now AKA "surviving the ground" -- WHAT?), I know longer know what a catch is, or when a touchdown is not a touchdown. Thanks to the appalling inconsistency of the officiating, I know longer know what warrants an ejection.

The fact that you can tossed for nudging an official but not for trying to take a guy's head off is unconscionable, and it exposes the league's "concern" for player safety for the bogus lip service it is.

As noted, the Panthers got the bargain of the year by trading 15 yards for getting rid of the only opposing player who was riding a hot hand. When a personal foul causes the victim of the foul to lose playing time, the inflictor of the the foul should have to sit for the same amount of time, whether it's 10 minutes or 10 games.

[rhickok1109]

I have a lot of respect for Bob Gill, but I totally disagree. It was emphatically not a catch under the NFL rule; whether the rule is good or bad is another question.

I couldn't understand why Nantz and Romo were so slow to see the actual issue. I saw it on the first replay and concluded that it was an incomplete pass. (Couldn't see it on the live shot because it was from the wrong angle.)

The rule says that the ball is dead the moment it breaks the plane of the goal-line while in possession of the ball-carrier. But a receiver doesn't become the ball-carrier until he has completed the catch, which he failed to do in this case.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Like the announcers and probably because of them, it took me a while to see it too, but once I saw it, I knew right away it would be overturned based on the rule.

I thought the ball was caught when he caught it and pulled it towards his body. The next thing he did was extend his arms and turn towards the endzone at which time I thought his knee touched while the ball was short of the goal (although at this point, I don't believe he was touched down by the opposition). Finally, because he left his feet to make the catch, he did crash into the ground and lose the ball.

I can see the value of the rule, but I guess I would have short circuited applying it when he pulled the ball towards himself and touched a knee down - that was good enough control for me. I would have thought the rule was meant for the case where receivers make leaping catches and then immediately crash into the ground causing the ball to pop out. Not sure why its getting applied to cases where receivers seem to clearly have caught the ball, but eventually crash into the ground losing it.

[Bryan]

Like the announcers and probably because of them, it took me a while to see it too, but once I saw it, I knew right away it would be overturned based on the rule.

I thought the ball was caught when he caught it and pulled it towards his body. The next thing he did was extend his arms at which time I thought his knee touched while the ball was short of the goal. Finally, because he left his feet to make the catch, he did crash into the ground and lose the ball.

I can see the value of the rule, but I guess I would have short circuited it when he pulled the ball towards himself - that was good enough control for me. I would have thought the rule was meant for the case where receivers make leaping catches and then immediately crash into the ground causing the ball to pop out. Not sure why its getting applied to cases where receivers seem to clearly have caught the ball, but eventually crash into the ground losing it.

Agree with this. I saw people mention the Dez Bryant 'catch' for comparison, but its not really the same thing IMO. There is a clear 'point of demarcation' where James makes the 'catch', then turns his body perpendicular to where has 'diving catch' should have put him. He landed on his knee (equals two feet), then contorted his body (football move) in a different direction to score the football. I get why the officials fell back on the 'catch rule', but I don't really think it was applicable from a logic standpoint (which, I admit, is not the strongest point to stand on).

[JWL]

The rule says that the ball is dead the moment it breaks the plane of the goal-line while in possession of the ball-carrier. But a receiver doesn't become the ball-carrier until he has completed the catch, which he failed to do in this case.

I can see the value of the rule, but I guess I would have short circuited applying it when he pulled the ball towards himself and touched a knee down - that was good enough control for me. I would have thought the rule was meant for the case where receivers make leaping catches and then immediately crash into the ground causing the ball to pop out. Not sure why its getting applied to cases where receivers seem to clearly have caught the ball, but eventually crash into the ground losing it.

Here we have two forum members back-to-back who cannot even agree if a catch was made. That is before we get into ball movement, balls in space, irrefutable evidence, correct adjudication of the rule, etc.

[Ronfitch]

Of greater concern was Thomas Davis' hit on Davante Adams after an INT. Davis showed remorse, but he should have been kicked out of the game. Really, with that type of hit there should be ejections. Eventually the NFL will go the college way and do more ejections, more immediate punishments on those hits. I have no problem with that.

That hit was avoidable, aimed at the player's head and directed at a defenseless player.

IMO, on blatant hits like that, the player who delivers should have an automatic suspension for the remainder of the season or until the player hit returns to play, whichever it longest. If that means a player is hurt and cannot resume their career, two playing careers are ended.

[Bob Gill]

I totally disagree. It was emphatically not a catch under the NFL rule; whether the rule is good or bad is another question.

Yeah, I didn't put that very well. I said I hated the call, but really what I hate is a rule that turns a fairly simple concept like a catch into a topic for a scientific discussion. Same goes for fumbles, too. I was in favor of using replays on controversial calls in the beginning, but I think the process has caused more problems than it solved -- not so much in delaying games, but in fostering the idea of treating catches and fumbles and what-have-you as legal issues subject to endless parsing. That catch yesterday would've been a touchdown in 1965 or '75 or '85 and nobody would have given it a second thought, and I miss those days.

[John Grasso]

That catch yesterday would've been a touchdown in 1965 or '75 or '85 and nobody would have given it a second thought, and I miss those days.

When exactly did the rule change?