Clearing up Wheatons "catch"

So it is still on the books that if a guy is forced out of the field of play it can count as a force out and he's allowed to then make a play on the ball without being penalized as the first to touch it?

 

On a pass yes. Also think on a punt too but haven't checked that one

 

I agree Snack. Although right when he made the catch I said to my wife that I think he may have stepped out and the TD may not count. Thing is, the only replay i saw didn't convince me 100% that his foot was on or over the line and i never saw a different camera angle. Also, the official that called it a TD was right in front of the play and would have had a perfect view. It was another official that overturned the TD and called him out. Should have kept it a TD and it would have automatically been reviewed.

 

I spent several hours on this last night to no avail. On the nfl.com Game Center there are 2 videos on the play. vid5 is "Wheaton TD nullified" vid6 is "Week 3 Steelers vs Carolina highlights. #6 stops the vid when he steps ob, however it only shows it from the back view and it does look conclusive. Now on the catch both vids show the front view which clearly shows the ob line and obviously he is way in bounds. Since they have both those angles I wonder why they did not show the front view of him stepping [if he did] on the line.

Now instead of all this blah blah I copied still pics of all those frames. Damn things will not paste so I cancelled the post. Several hours of work shot.

I also copied the playxplay from the Official Gamebook of the play. It pasted. There is no mention of anything stated above. All it says is well, here is what it looked like.

3-6-CAR 6 (5:47) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete short left to M.Wheaton

4-6-CAR 6 (5:40) S.Suisham 24 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-G.Warren, Holder-B.Wing.

------------------------------PIT 6 CAR 3, 16 plays, 87 yards, 8:00 drive, 9:23 elapsed

There is absolutely nothing mentioned about the illegal receiver or the stepping ob or a penalty or anything. All it says is "pass incomplete" :????

Someone said it should be 3-11 from the 11. Why if there was a penalty would they accept it??

I noticed that the instant Wheaton's left foot came down [ob] he began turning inward. Obviously, this was a designed play. Ben released the ball at that point. A really great play. But overturned most likely correctly.

Oh btw: This is the link to the Game Center page on nfl.com that has these videos. Uhh! It doesn't work either. But if you want to see those videos go to week 3 NFL scores click on Game Center on the Car-Pit score block.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2014092113/2014/REG3/steelers@panthers#menu=gameinfo&tab=recap

 

I think we somewhat got screwed.

First, I do think he stepped out of bounds.
Second, I do think he had come back in and that both feet were down, making the catch good from that perspective.
Third, it was never established whether he stepped out by choice or if he was forced out.
Fourth, being that it was NOT ruled a TD, the play was not able to be reviewed, assuming I understand the rule correctly.

Had they called the play a TD, the situation may have been different.

 

You know, I've kind of wondered why they don't rule a touchdown more often, since it's automatically reviewed. Would seem it would take a lot of the guesswork out of it. Unless they're under an edict from the league office to not slow down the game unless it's a surefire td (or so they think).

 

TTF and I worked on this issue a little bit:

http://thesteelersfans.com/3537/shedding-light-wheatons-incomplete-pass/

If you haven't seen a replay, it has a couple of gifs that clearly show that... well, clearly show what everybody is saying so far!

 

Cheers for this. I'm just glad we won, so we can review this all in a leisurely manner, rather than getting irate about it...

 

I still havent seen a good replay pf Wheatons catch. I didn't see for sure.that he HAD stepped out. I'm aware of the rules. I noticed the sj.who has 5 yards away ruled it a TD immediately. Tomlin should have challenged regardless. I wish I could say I can't believe he wouldn't challenge a TD in a one score game against a great defense with all his timeouts left but it's par for the course, obviously.

 

I'm still confused, as after the section with the rule, you mention in bold that it should have been a loss of downs. But then everything else suggest we should have been penalized and had another shot at it. Am I reading it wrong?

 

You're absolutely right. It must say: "repeat 3rd down" instead of "loss of a down". It will be corrected shortly.

My mistake...

Yes, as everything else suggests, It should have been a penalty and still 3rd down (with a 5 yd penalty).

 

Thanks! Next question, why doesn't our HC know about that and question the ruling on the field?

 

I think he did? Difficult to tell with where the camera was pointing.

 

I don't even think he stepped out of bounds. It looks like his foot is parallel to the sideline and from the angle, it appears that he is right inside. The closest ref even signaled TD. I think Wheaton was deprived of his first career touchdown. Hopefully he has many many more to come.

 

If he was forced out of bounds by illegal contact and came back in and got both feet down it's a touchdown. He was more than five yards downfield when he was pushed out say that would make it illegal contact and the score should have counted.

 

Dat what I taid
Just in case we Play NO I want to speak the lingo

 

I guess the referee could have called any of this, and have support from video evidence:
a) Illegal Contact (ball at 3 yardline, 1st down)
b) Pass interference, defense (ball at 3 yardline, 1st down)
c) Illegal touch (ball at 11 yardline, 3rd down)

 

Offsides!

No one is talking about that. Worst-case scenario for us should have been a replayed down.

 

A confusing play for sure. You betcha! [I just watched Fargo again]

A whole lot of things could have been called on the play. But they were not. So, In regards to

a) ok. 5yd penalty automatic 1st down. In this case half the distance from the six ball at 3 1st down. ok

b) Not sure but PI I think they put the ball on the 1? [2?] 1st down of course but it was not called so mute point.

c) Illegal touch also not called but if it was and it is a 5yd penalty why would they put the ball at the 11 yd line and repeat the down? Does the other team not have any option to refuse the penalty on this infraction? I really can't believe that is the rule but how can anyone question Pereria? [he probably wrote the freaking rule]

Someone said they would have liked to see another angle. There sure as heck are at least two. On the videos I mentioned earlier they show a front view after the catch and maybe even a view from the back. But no where have I seen any view of the foot touching the ob line from a side front or rear view. Anyone wonder why? Granted his left foot APPEARS to touch the line from the back view. And also there is a clear picture of the side judge with both arms in TD mode. An interesting play for sure. You betcha!

 

"Clearing up" Uh! IDTS. Now I am in a total state of confusion over the play. I hope it does not affect my play Sunday against Tampa.

The definitive answer is probably a simple one. But I have not seen it yet.

'It reminds me of the play in the Detroit - Green Bay game some years ago. All the announcers and 99% of the millions watching were totally confused by a call. The call was a simple no brainer but few knew the rule.

What happened was the Det WR was racing down the right sideline and at about the 2yd line he leaped in the air and made a spectacular catch in the EZ. His right foot landed first clearly in bounds and he turned to the sideline and also clearly landed his left foot in bounds. But right there in front of him was the official with his arms outstretched giving the no catch sign. Trust me, millions were totally confused. Yet, the call was a simple no brainer. The Det WR brushed the pylon on the play and was instantly out of bounds since the pylon is in the end zone and out of bounds.

This play is somewhat similar. The instant his foot was ruled ob it was over.

No ands ifs or buts. Since nothing else was called everything else is irrelevant.

 

He most definitely did. He was very critical during this game with the officials and you could see he was arguing the call!