<![CDATA[REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED]]>Recieved catches the ball, taks TWO FULL STEPS....................... no decision needed, By the description of a catch, this IS A RECEPTION.

PLUS he made ANOTHER contad, whcih was his hand.

HE did NOT have to maintain control................. he already caught it and took steps with the ball in control. Ground cannot caus a fumble once the pass is completed, and THIS PASS, was completed.

Asshole refs.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/2468/refs-blow-call-reception-and-td-disallowedRSS for NodeFri, 02 Oct 2026 13:00:38 GMTMon, 19 Jan 2009 00:25:05 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:54:47 GMT]]>

Masters said:

*yawn*

Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.

well NO New about it because the Steelers WON. On Steeler Radio there is plenty of discussion. And I fully understand the "Rule thing" at this Point. Common sense needs to rule stuff like this. NFL Are you listening ????? (Yeah ...I KNOW)

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35284https://brownsboard.com/post/35284Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:54:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:35:39 GMT]]>

@yeahdaisafuturehofer... said:

I personally believe the Holmes incompletion call was correct. (But then again, I have been repeatedly been told I am the stupidest person on this board, so don't listen to me 😆 )

Masters, if we use you logic the nonholding calls the Ravens O-line got away with and the roughing the punter call would have also been correct becuase those calls aren't being talked about either. I get where you are coming from but just saying...

Holding is always a bad example. There is holding on every play in the NFL. The roughing isn't being talked about because it too is the correct call by the rules. But that's a fine example of a bad rule, at least the way it is writen and enforced in the NFL. Or the running into the kicker call in the Eagles/Cards game. That's all my point is. If that call on the Holmes play was incorrect, trust me, PTI, Around the Horn, Rome, and 1st and 10 would have all been talking about it.

I wish I had NFL Network because I'll be they end up with Mike Pereira on explaining the call.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35279https://brownsboard.com/post/35279Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:35:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:30:24 GMT]]>

Masters said:

*yawn*

Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.

I personally believe the Holmes incompletion call was correct. (But then again, I have been repeatedly been told I am the stupidest person on this board, so don't listen to me 😆 )

Masters, if we use you logic the nonholding calls the Ravens O-line got away with and the roughing the punter call would have also been correct becuase those calls aren't being talked about either. I get where you are coming from but just saying...

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35275https://brownsboard.com/post/35275Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:30:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:28:06 GMT]]>

@earl34 said:

I don't agree with the rule but "incomplete" is the proper call based on the rule which states that the receiver must maintain possession even while hitting the ground if he went down AS A RESULT OF CONTACT. I'm as appalled by the poor officiating as anyone but that's the right call. They've been beating this like a dead horse all season. You get hit and go down...you have to maintain control throughout. That's the rule. It may suck like the "Tuck Rule" but as of right now...that's the rule.

Exactly and I agree with you 100%

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35272https://brownsboard.com/post/35272Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:28:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:27:11 GMT]]>

@rich4eagle said:

So if the receiver catches the ball and drags the defender for twenty yards and then hits the ground it is incomplete because of contact??????????????/

OH YEAH

The refs blew the call big time ........they did not even know their own rules

two steps with possession means complete and that happened

Jesus, the first part makes zero sense there chief.

Yes, two steps, but only two steps is all he had. He didn't have two feet down, then two steps. As I have said, it's the same play as when a guy jumps up, comes down with the ball and two feet in (on the sideline or in the endzone), goes to the ground and drops the ball. A player must control the ball all the way through the catch including hitting the ground.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35271https://brownsboard.com/post/35271Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:27:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:25:07 GMT]]>

FREAKofSTEEL08 said:

Well Being Holmes had a TD.... YES I would take my Chances. But Dude , bottom line is a Catch is a Catch !!!! Its just stupid !!

Like I said, I don't agree with the rule and I personally think it should be a TD. But what I think or believe the rule should be doesn't matter. I don't write the NFL rules.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35269https://brownsboard.com/post/35269Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:25:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:23:46 GMT]]>

@rich4eagle said:

By the same token you are wrong again. It was a completion to Holmes blown by the referees and again misread by you. But since you have no clue about simple math, how can one construe you understand that two steps after possession constructs a clear reception .......what follows is either down by contact with the ground or a fumble........a fumble was clearly the case and recovery....or was it down by contact..........that is the question........the bigger issue is

did the recovery occur before or after the endzone

*yawn*

Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35267https://brownsboard.com/post/35267Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:23:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:04:40 GMT]]>So if the receiver catches the ball and drags the defender for twenty yards and then hits the ground it is incomplete because of contact??????????????/

OH YEAH

The refs blew the call big time ........they did not even know their own rules

two steps with possession means complete and that happened

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35252https://brownsboard.com/post/35252Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:04:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:46:42 GMT]]>I don't agree with the rule but "incomplete" is the proper call based on the rule which states that the receiver must maintain possession even while hitting the ground if he went down AS A RESULT OF CONTACT. I'm as appalled by the poor officiating as anyone but that's the right call. They've been beating this like a dead horse all season. You get hit and go down...you have to maintain control throughout. That's the rule. It may suck like the "Tuck Rule" but as of right now...that's the rule.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35245https://brownsboard.com/post/35245Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:46:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:14:41 GMT]]>

Masters said:

As I have said in several posts, I don't agree with the rule, but it is the rule. At the same token, I am sure you wouldn't have wanted the incompletea pass to Washington on the first drive ruled a fumble (two feet down and control of the ball).

Well Being Holmes had a TD.... YES I would take my Chances. But Dude , bottom line is a Catch is a Catch !!!! Its just stupid !!

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35232https://brownsboard.com/post/35232Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:14:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:14:45 GMT]]>By the same token you are wrong again. It was a completion to Holmes blown by the referees and again misread by you. But since you have no clue about simple math, how can one construe you understand that two steps after possession constructs a clear reception .......what follows is either down by contact with the ground or a fumble........a fumble was clearly the case and recovery....or was it down by contact..........that is the question........the bigger issue is

did the recovery occur before or after the endzone

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35231https://brownsboard.com/post/35231Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:14:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:06:58 GMT]]>

FREAKofSTEEL08 said:

Just LOOK at the Replay ...if thats NOT A Catch... Geez...Common Sense says that's a Catch . Dumb NFL bs.... Amazing.

As I have said in several posts, I don't agree with the rule, but it is the rule. At the same token, I am sure you wouldn't have wanted the incompletea pass to Washington on the first drive ruled a fumble (two feet down and control of the ball).

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35228https://brownsboard.com/post/35228Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:06:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:03:41 GMT]]>

Masters said:

Of course Simms also backed off it and agreed with the ref after the ruling. They just keep changing it so much, it's pretty crazy. At least on this rule it's called pretty consitantly. Just happened to be on the Holmes play he was in stride, rather than the catch on the sidelines, endzone, or a guy leaping and it happinging like more commonly seen.

Just LOOK at the Replay ...if thats NOT A Catch... Geez...Common Sense says that's a Catch . Dumb NFL bs.... Amazing.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35225https://brownsboard.com/post/35225Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:03:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:29:03 GMT]]>

FREAKofSTEEL08 said:

Yes ...But even Simms said that last nite Two Feet Down Ball in Control. Its a Catch. Nobody Knows the actual Rule ya know ! ?

Of course Simms also backed off it and agreed with the ref after the ruling. They just keep changing it so much, it's pretty crazy. At least on this rule it's called pretty consitantly. Just happened to be on the Holmes play he was in stride, rather than the catch on the sidelines, endzone, or a guy leaping and it happinging like more commonly seen.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35200https://brownsboard.com/post/35200Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:29:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:22:24 GMT]]>

Masters said:

But that ain't the rule (I don't agree with the rule, but that is neither here nor there). By what you said, Washington should have had a fumble on PITs first drive. By the rule, the Holmes play is no different than when a guy makes a sideline grab or one in the endzone, has control of the ball while getting two feet down, goes to the ground and loses the ball, and it's called incomplete. They changed the rule about 5 or 6 years ago that made it that after two feet down, if you go to the ground, you must maintain control of the ball when and after hitting the ground.

Yes ...But even Simms said that last nite Two Feet Down Ball in Control. Its a Catch. Nobody Knows the actual Rule ya know ! ?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35195https://brownsboard.com/post/35195Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:22:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:37:40 GMT]]>

@dawgtracker said:

If he had stepped out of bounds it was a catch. He made two steps after controlling the ball and lunged for the goal line. It was a stupid call. Did the ground knock the ball out of his hand? Yes But, it was a legal reception before that.

Good call glad you are objective enough to understand the rules

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35141https://brownsboard.com/post/35141Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:37:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:34:55 GMT]]>

@dawgtracker said:

If he had stepped out of bounds it was a catch. He made two steps after controlling the ball and lunged for the goal line. It was a stupid call. Did the ground knock the ball out of his hand? Yes But, it was a legal reception before that.

His two steps were in stride then to the ground. If he went out of bounds the same way and the ball came loose, the call would still be incomplete. The rule is you must maintain control of the ball when you hit the ground after initially making the catch and only getting two feet down before hitting the ground. If your two steps are while running or both just coming down planting after jumping for the ball, it's still your first two feet down.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35135https://brownsboard.com/post/35135Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:34:55 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:31:45 GMT]]>If he had stepped out of bounds it was a catch. He made two steps after controlling the ball and lunged for the goal line. It was a stupid call. Did the ground knock the ball out of his hand? Yes But, it was a legal reception before that.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35133https://brownsboard.com/post/35133Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:31:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:31:13 GMT]]>

FREAKofSTEEL08 said:

wasnt aimed at you Bro... I agreed with your assessment. So i piggybacked ya ! Sorry !

No worries.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35132https://brownsboard.com/post/35132Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:31:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:30:56 GMT]]>

FREAKofSTEEL08 said:

BOTH FEET Down ...Ball in control.... Santonio caught that one....Period. The Zebras didn't see it that way... But still ...

Another instance , that provess the Officials were not "HELPING " Pittsburgh. If they were THAT WAS Never gonna get overturned.

But that ain't the rule (I don't agree with the rule, but that is neither here nor there). By what you said, Washington should have had a fumble on PITs first drive. By the rule, the Holmes play is no different than when a guy makes a sideline grab or one in the endzone, has control of the ball while getting two feet down, goes to the ground and loses the ball, and it's called incomplete. They changed the rule about 5 or 6 years ago that made it that after two feet down, if you go to the ground, you must maintain control of the ball when and after hitting the ground.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35131https://brownsboard.com/post/35131Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:30:56 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:27:43 GMT]]>

Masters said:

Not sure why you chose my post to reply with this 🙄

I'd agree the 1st PI call was questionable, and that the last in the Eagles game should have been called.

I didn't say the refs helped PIT.

wasnt aimed at you Bro... I agreed with your assessment. So i piggybacked ya ! Sorry !

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35124https://brownsboard.com/post/35124Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:27:43 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:26:35 GMT]]>

Masters said:

"A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball." If the ball comes loose on contact with the ground it is INC. If you watched a game more than once a year, you'd know this. Guys get get two feet in hit the ground and lose the ball on ground contact each week and it is INC.

BOTH FEET Down ...Ball in control.... Santonio caught that one....Period. The Zebras didn't see it that way... But still ...

Another instance , that provess the Officials were not "HELPING " Pittsburgh. If they were THAT WAS Never gonna get overturned.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35120https://brownsboard.com/post/35120Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:26:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:26:14 GMT]]>

FREAKofSTEEL08 said:

Add to that the 1st Pass Interference Call....BS little Sissy call. Pass Interference is only to be called IF the DB received an advantage over the receiver on the play. Clearly the 1st time was BS. The 2nd one (on Taylor) Was a good call. So, Tell me why in the heck That 1st one was interferance and the Last Play the Eagles had the Ball wasn't ???? (in the PHILLY Game)

And anyone crying the "refs" Helped Pittsburgh...what ever You just Identified yourselves as Azzwipes , if that's the Case.

Because IF the Officials were help Pittsburgh NONE of those interference calls get made and Baltimore never even SNIFFS the End Zone !!!!

Not sure why you chose my post to reply with this 🙄

I'd agree the 1st PI call was questionable, and that the last in the Eagles game should have been called.

I didn't say the refs helped PIT.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35119https://brownsboard.com/post/35119Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:26:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:23:29 GMT]]>

Masters said:

Rich and Ghoolie, even a legit PIT can see it

Add to that the 1st Pass Interference Call....BS little Sissy call. Pass Interference is only to be called IF the DB received an advantage over the receiver on the play. Clearly the 1st time was BS. The 2nd one (on Taylor) Was a good call. So, Tell me why in the heck That 1st one was interferance and the Last Play the Eagles had the Ball wasn't ???? (in the PHILLY Game)

And anyone crying the "refs" Helped Pittsburgh...what ever You just Identified yourselves as Azzwipes , if that's the Case.

Because IF the Officials were help Pittsburgh NONE of those interference calls get made and Baltimore never even SNIFFS the End Zone !!!!

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/35116https://brownsboard.com/post/35116Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:23:29 GMT