Once the double-catch is still the problem. If he doesn't catch it cleanly, the ref will always wait to see if he holds onto the ball as he lands and mark the spot where he falls. In this case, the replay may not have even helped him there.
The ref who called the bobble was BEHIND Faulk so he couldn't even see the ball. Just look at the NFL gameday highlights. At 5:26 he has possession and his left foot touches the ground.. then at 5:30 you can see the overhead cam and that when his left foot is down, he is clearly across the first down line.
As the ball reaches Faulk's hands, both of his feet are on the ground but he does not catch it cleanly. Bullitt then makes contact with Faulk, knocking off his balance and leaving him only on his left foot as he grips the ball and begins falling. By the time Faulk gets his right foot down, he's already starting to fall and his hands are STILL MOVING thanks to Bullitt getting his hands in there. The Linesman cannot confirm the catch until Faulk is on the ground, still holding onto the ball. The linesman that made the original spot could easily see Faulk bobble the ball and Faulk not having both feet down until he was falling, short of the first down marker. So you have: -Faulk with both feet down, makes contact with the ball. -Faulk bobbles the initial contact, Bullitt contacts Faulk, Faulk's right foot comes up. -Faulk makes the catch standing only on his left foot and begins falling across the 1st down marker.(Ball-in-hands + 1 foot down) -Faulk, still falling, finally brings his right foot down, continues to fall, with his hands moving.(Both feet down, ball not entirely secured) -Faulk finally lands and maintains possession of the ball, short of the 1st down marker.(Ball-carrier is down, ball is secured, catch) Catch was good, but short.
Right after the game I was incredibly pissed and couldn't understand the decision at all. With two days to think about it, I think in theory going for it probably was the right decision. The defense was getting torched and they had two downs to get two yards and win the game. With the way their offense was lighting it up, two yards there should not have been a problem. I find more fault with the way the entire series was completely mismanaged. Wasting two timeouts was inexcusable. And, if they knew they were going for it, I think they should have run the ball on third down to at least run down the clock in case they didn't get it. On 4th down, I absolutely hated the playcall. Faulk was having an excellent game running on draw plays and immediately moving him out as a receiver was dumb and showed their hand. Throwing it to right at the sticks was also dumb, and when you do that and he bobbles it, that's what you get ( I think he actually did have it, but again they wasted the time outs and couldn't challenge it). The idea of going for it in that situation isn't that bad, but the actual execution of it was awful and its pretty clear they entire team completely shit themselves in the final minutes. On a final note, I fucking hate Maroney.
Is there anywhere where I can watch the replay of this game? I was so busy I had 2 tests to study for, so I had missed it.
Pretty much sums up the way I see it. In addition, its nice to once again see that not all Pats fans that post here are dickless losers.
NFLN will replay it tomorrow. I don't think his hands move after he catches the ball, he clearly has one foot down with the ball over the line and it looks like he might have had the other one down too. I don't know the exact rules for forward progress/receiver possession, but I imagine if he had control of the ball at the 30, it should be spotted at the 30. Whatever the case, your avatar pretty well makes any point you might've made invalid.
what is a double catch? how can you catch the ball twice and it not be a bobble? if he catches it, and then loses control and has to catch it again, thus a double catch, his forward progress where he first caught it becomes void because he proceeded to lose possession and had to make a second catch (also called bobbling it), and where his forward progress is marked is determined after he has caught the ball -- the second time, behind the first down. honestly, how exactly are you defining a double catch that differentiates it from a bobble?
You can call it a bobble if you want, but he had control at the first down marker. CKNY6 - you're wrong.
His hands are moving, he's falling down, he doesn't completely establish possession of the ball until his shoulder hits at the 29. Deal with it.
call it a double catch, but then the second catch is where has possession and that is where he is marked, and he didn't make that second catch until he was knocked back behind the first down line. had he made a single catch instead of a double catch, he would have had the first down. this could all be much simpler to type with the universal description of a bobbled catch.
...except you're way off. He bobbled the catch so possession cannot be established until he brings his right foot back down which doesn't happen until the ball crosses back over the 30 and short of the first down. Possession doesn't start from when he first touches the ball, it starts from when he first secures the ball which is after his left foot comes down with his right foot still in the air, falling down. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.
So the best coach in football made a mistake, he is human after all, what bothers me the most is that they actually were on the verge of beating the Colts and they will probably will be representing the AFC in the SB again, one more ring on Belicheats finger for Rex not to kiss.
You could make it simpler by not contradicting yourself. You're not even addressing the point I was trying to make and originally you said "he doesn't completely establish possession of the ball until his shoulder hits", which IMO is clearly not the case. My point is that he had the ball secured in his hands while he was well over the first down. Now, if you want to argue that he needed both feet down to mark forward progress, you might have a point but I assumed he would be marked where he had the ball securely in his hands. Even if that's not the case though, his right foot touched down when the tip of the ball looked like it was still across the 30 - at which point he would have not only had the ball secure, but both feet down as well. As illustrated. And I'm not an idiot, I know "possession doesn't start from when he first touches the ball".
He's also still falling down, which is a major point you have yet to contend. The receiver has to be in control of the ball and until he lands, he doesn't have complete control as the ball can still pop out, which would have made it an incompletion. Where the ball is where he lands, that is where the ref spotted the ball because that is where he should have spotted the ball. If he does not hold onto that ball after his shoulders hit, then it is not a completion. If there's a question as to whether or not it is a completion until that point the ref cannot mark forward progress before that point. Edit: You were right, my comments about where his feet were during the play were completely irrelevant. So, as I (most recently) said, since Faulk was "going to the ground in the process of catching the ball", the ref cannot rule the play a catch until after Faulk comes down and maintains possession of the ball after hitting the ground. source.
Allow me to interject here. Had Maroney not fumbled on the 1 yard line and turned the ball over, this conversation would be moot. The Pats would have won by a score of either 41-35 or 37-35 depending on whether they had gotten a TD or FG on that drive. the Colts know they were getting their asses whipped as well as everyone watching that game. The PI call that gave them the ball on our 30 something yd line and the 4th and 2 were early christmas gifts. I hope we meet the Colts again and this time finish them off. I believe NE will be taking their frustrations out on the Jets this sunday. Maybe Rex and company will keep their traps shut this week, but I doubt they can.
I don't know if you saw this angle at the 30 second mark : http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-england-patriots/09000d5d814424f7/Belichick-bad-decision But that clearly shows he didn't have possession until he hit the ground.
Blah blah blah...taking out their frustrations...blah blah blah...something to prove...blah blah blah...more stupid bullshit. You're talking as if the Jets have nothing left to prove. Next week is a desperation game for both teams.
