Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Ryan Torain's 4th quarter absence: gameplan or injury?

Redskins running back Ryan Torain posted the first 100-yard game of his career against the Colts. His last carry of the night, however, came on the Redskins' first possession of the fourth quarter, a third-and-1 carry on which Torain lost three yards.

From that point on, the Redskins elected to play rookie Keiland Williams, and it was Williams who scored the touchdown that pulled the Redskins within 27-24 with 2:46 remaining. Was Torain - who carried the ball 20 times and scored two touchdowns - surprised he didn't see the field more in the fourth quarter?

"The coaches had a plan going in the game and that's what they called, so I just wait for the coaches to call my number," said Torain, who does not give very expansive answers.

Torain, though, might have provided a clue as to why Williams played most of the fourth quarter. He arrived in the Redskins locker room Monday morning with his left knee heavily wrapped. Asked if he was dinged-up, Torain said, "Uh, no, I'm fine."

But what about the left knee?

"I'm great," he said, smiling.

Coach Mike Shanahan has warned his players about providing injury information to the media.

By Barry Svrluga  | October 18, 2010; 1:30 PM ET
Categories:  Ryan Torain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Redskins gave up a big play at the wrong time
Next: Redskins lowest-ranked defense not executing

Comments

"His last carry of the night, however, came on the Redskins' first possession of the fourth quarter, a third-and-1 carry on which Torain lost three yards."


Was that the brilliant 'toss-sweep' call?

Posted by: 4-12 | October 18, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

team is paper thin at rb....little to no depth....shoulda done MMason for Peterson/Brady/Peppers when we had the chance...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | October 18, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"said Torain, who does not give very expansive answers. "

He says it like it is a bad thing. This dude never had to talk to the Media everyday like he has to now......Give some respect why don't ya....

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

team is paper thin at rb....little to no depth....shoulda done MMason for Peterson/Brady/Peppers when we had the chance...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | October 18, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

lulz

Posted by: Bigfoot_has_a_posse | October 18, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"His last carry of the night, however, came on the Redskins' first possession of the fourth quarter, a third-and-1 carry on which Torain lost three yards."


Was that the brilliant 'toss-sweep' call?


Posted by: 4-12 | October 18, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

that WAS an awful call, it was what? 3rd and 1? DMac should've snuck it up in there like he did in a similar situation earlier in the game.

Posted by: Bigfoot_has_a_posse | October 18, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Its a bad call today, but if he would have broke that run for touchdown, it would have been a good call today.

Redskins played well, against a good team, and could have won with a good drive at the end.

No shame in this game. Let's beat the Bears. We better blitz like no tomorrow this coming Sunday. And special teams must be perfectly hesterless.

Posted by: Rando | October 18, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

It's easy to pick on a play that doesn't work, but I think Shanny Sr. say sonny down after the game to explain the concept of a slow developing play against a fast D primed for a short yardage call.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | October 18, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch a bitter BMitch in the post game show?

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

We win the game with Torain playing in the fourth. On the drive that ended overthrowing Armstrong on fourth down, on the play where Donovan was sacked, I'm screaming at my TV at the snap to run the ball. The Colts rushed three and dropped eight, and Torain would have blown through. Hell, Williams would have as well, but I don't think they had the confidence in him to run it at that stage in the game.

Of course, even with how things went on second and third down, we still would have picked up the first if McNabb had gone to Davis instead of Armstrong. We had plenty of time and all our time outs, so why did we go for it? Armstrong was covered by two guys - it's as though the play was drawn up for Armstrong to take the top off the defense so McNabb could hit an intermediate route, and McNabb just didn't understand the playcall... Ugh.

Posted by: crashinghero | October 18, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Donovan McNabb is an asset. After watching last night, the success of this season is all about McNabb.

Posted by: HughGRection | October 18, 2010 1:48 PM

The first sentence is probably accurate... the second sentence is hyperbolic.

McNabb is the 24th ranked QB in the NFL... the Skins are the NFL's 31st ranked team in touchdown efficiency in the red zone.

The success of the season has something to do with a defense that holds most opponent under 17 points, even while giving up huge numbers of yards.

Posted by: Alan4 | October 18, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Interesting drama this week:

Shanny v. Cutler

McNabb v. hometown Chi-town

Rex G. v. Da Bears

Devin Hester v. redskins' special teams

Julius Peppers v. JBrown/TWilliams

MMartz v. JHaslett


Most compelling matchup: Hester versus the skins' special teams.

The Bears get either a touchdown or great field postion from Hester who is also a threat to go deep as a wr from time to time.

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 18, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch a bitter BMitch in the post game show?


Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

now I am bitter that I missed that.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | October 18, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse
--------------------------

I didn't see the contact. Looked for it, but didn't see the other guy actually touch CR. Anyway, with the ridiculous interpretation that you have to maintain the catch while going to the ground (regardless of step count), saying the guy was going down by contact would have supported the 'non-completion of the catch' call on the field.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | October 18, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Most compelling matchup: Hester versus the skins' special teams

or should it be Hester VS Brandon Banks?

Posted by: demonj21 | October 18, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | October 18, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

You obv didn't know this but P Garcon is one of if not the fastest WR in the league. Saying that our SS and not our CB should have covered him is wrong. Especially considering Halls placement on the field next to the sideline, 30 yards down field attmepting to cover Garcon and only Garcon.

Flat out Dhalls fault for getting beat by the guy. But thats not how you want to see it...

Posted by: Stu27 | October 18, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that's the way the rule reads anymore, 4th. Gotta complete the catch to the ground through the act of the operation . . . or somesuch.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | October 18, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

4thFloor @ 1:55 PM

"Anyone else see it that way?"

Absolutely, I can't see it any other way.

Posted by: Alan4 | October 18, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else notice the "Welcome McNabb" signs hanging in the stadium during the Vikings-Cowgirls game yesterday?

Do they know something we don't?

Posted by: Vic1 | October 18, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"or should it be Hester VS Brandon Banks?"

Once Brandon Banks returns a kick for a touchdown in a Super Bowl (or multiple regular season games), then you might make a comparison.

Until then, you don't.

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 18, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Steve, while you seem to be correct; riddle me this:

How does putting 3 steps on the ground NOT constitue "going to the ground".

As fars as manos de piedra being down by contact... did anyone from the opposing team touch him on his way down?

The rules are getting like basketball - so they can SJK with the spreads. You watch. Fantasy stats.. spreads... power ratings... it's becoming fixed.

Posted by: DikShuttle | October 18, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else notice the "Welcome McNabb" signs hanging in the stadium during the Vikings-Cowgirls game yesterday?

Do they know something we don't?

Posted by: Vic1 | October 18, 2010 2:04 PM

I didn't see that...but what's up with their turf...watching that game gave me a damn migraine!! Yuck!

Posted by: PlayAction | October 18, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM

He could only be ruled down by contact if he was touched by the other team or made to go to the ground by the other team. In this case he was just going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. It is the same rule that got Calvin Johnson in the endzone earlier this season. You must maintain possession of the ball throughout going to the ground. He lost it when his elbow hit the ground - no catch.

If it would have been ruled that CR22 fell to the ground on his own after making the catch (instead of in the act of making the catch) it would have been a fumble that was recovered by the Colts. That is why they challenged the play.

Posted by: ELWOOD-BLUES | October 18, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

@Dik

Naw, man, I don't really get it, to be honest. (ELWOOD seems to understand it more fully.)

I was really just making a point about the incomprehensibility of the rules on that one and the ridiculous language the NFL uses now.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | October 18, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Did anyone else notice the "Welcome McNabb" signs hanging in the stadium during the Vikings-Cowgirls game yesterday?"


The vikes will regret the Randy Moss trade.

They gave the pats a gift for a player who really won't help their offense.

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 18, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Here's the deal with CR22... he caught the ball. Period. CR22 caught the ball and took several steps.

The ball came out when his rear end hit the ground.

Coach Jim Caldwell saw the same thing we saw, and that's why he challenged the ruling that it was NOT an INT.

Apparently, catching the ball alone is not enough for an interception. There is some new rule that you must maintain possession after going to the ground.

Posted by: Alan4 | October 18, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

But once you have possesion, it doesn't matter if it is a pass play or a run play. He caught the ball and took 3 (backwards running) steps. Hit the ground, which caused the fumble.

I am not saying he was going to the ground while catching the ball. He caught it and took 3 steps after the catch. Then went to the ground when his elbow hit it, the funble was caused.

So, all the above explainations wouldn't count. The catch was a catch. The fumble was caused by the ground when he was a runner (running backwards albeit) going to the ground. I think Collinsworth was off-base talking about being touched.....

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Shanny v. Cutler


Posted by: MistaMoe | October 18, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

That's the first half storyline. 2nd half is Todd Collins vs. Former team.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | October 18, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse


moe,

BBanks say's hi !

dude can scoot up the sideline, like to see him cut one back for a TD !

Posted by: hessone | October 18, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I saw it and so did everyone else watching the game in a bar at the Dallas Forth Worth International airport, oddly enough. Even the barista wearing a Miles Austin jersey saw it.

Posted by: Pepper5 | October 18, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

How does putting 3 steps on the ground NOT constitue "going to the ground".

Posted by: DikShuttle | October 18, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse
------------------------

It worked out in our favor last night, but it seems backwards that a league so enamored with high flying offenses has these arbitrary 'situational' extensions to the rule.

But if one remembers, this crap started back when the Steelers were playing the Patriots when they were preselected by the CIA to win the Super Bowl. The tuck rule was invented to get them past the Raiders, then this 'continue to the ground' rule was invented to prevent a critical catch by a Steelers WR, who bobbled the ball when he landed out of bounds.

Of course, then the league went back and wrote those rules into the rule book, and has been trying to justify one goof by adding several layers of fluff to mask the idiocy of abandoning the possession + two feet rule which worked for 50 years or so.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | October 18, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

beep-beep

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 18, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse


NFL expecting to review catch rule

CHICAGO -- Calvin Johnson's no-catch just might become a catch in the future.

The NFL expects to review the rule that cost the Lions' star receiver a potential winning touchdown in a season-opening loss to Chicago. After Johnson went to the turf with possession, he placed the ball on the ground as he ran to celebrate. It's been one of the season's most discussed -- and dissed -- calls.

"The going-to-the-ground rule definitely will be discussed," NFL competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay said Tuesday at the league's fall meetings. "It's been discussed the last couple of years. It's a difficult rule. It was made for on-field officials, not as much for people watching on TV."

"There's a definite conflict," he added. "We have to go back and look if we extended it too far."

Against Chicago, with Detroit trailing 19-14, Johnson leaped to grab a pass from Shaun Hill in the end zone. He got both feet and a knee on the ground before putting the ball on the grass and beginning to celebrate. It was ruled incomplete because Johnson didn't maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

The competition committee will meet after the Super Bowl and then suggest any rules changes to team owners at the league's spring meetings in March.

Posted by: Alan4 | October 18, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

PPstr8, can't we put in Grossman and then it can be reversi-back challenge?

Posted by: DikShuttle | October 18, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse


Question for Jason Reid:

Is this the first football game you have every covered? Because the idiotic second-guessing question like the one posed in this piece sure makes it seem like it.

Is this even a serious question? Wow. Um, J-Reid, we were down by 2 scores. Maybe, just maybe, that had something to do with why we weren't eager to run the ball in the 4th quarter?

Posted by: Barno1 | October 18, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I caught Bmich beefing hard on the post-game. I thought he was going to punch Trevor Matich for "covering" for the coaches errors. Bmitch even went after Doc Walker for making a joke. It was a Bmitch classic. Dude was almost slobbering mad that Shanny didn't play Haynesworth.

Posted by: tank1906 | October 18, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The Rogers play was ruled incomplete on the field. Caldwell challenged that he caught the ball, hit the ground (untouched), and fumbled. If he would have won the challenge the Colts would have gotten the ball and a big gain.

The rule is subjective. The ref must have felt that CR22's momentum was taking him to the ground. He just happened to get his feet under him first. It is similar to a player getting a touchback on a ball that was intercepted at the one as he's falling backward into the endzone - his momentum carried him in.

Imagine this situation. A player keeps both feet down in bounds while stretching out of bounds to catch the ball. He catches it with two hands and tucks it away as he falls to the ground, but as he hits the ground the ball pops out. For a a split second as he was falling he controlled the ball with two feet down. But it isn't a catch, because he didn't maintain control throughout the process of going to the ground. No catch.

Posted by: ELWOOD-BLUES | October 18, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else have a feeling that Steve Slaton will be on our roster in the nest 36 hours?

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | October 18, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch a bitter BMitch in the post game show?


Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

now I am bitter that I missed that.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | October 18, 2010 1:58 PM |

this dude belongs on shanahan's coaching staff. oh, he'll pat you on the back for good play, but he'll also hold you accountable and demand that you're a team player first.

Posted by: hessone | October 18, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I will, however, respectfully disagree with you, 4th, that he caught the ball, was running (as you say, backwards), and then hit the ground.

I don't see any way of looking at it other than it was still a continuation of the catch, going to ground, but that's just me. And the refs/NFL, I guess . . .

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | October 18, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I just looked at nfl.com and they didn't have the play. I have it home, though. I was extremely surprised no one brought up that theory during the telecast...

That was the longest I ever saw CR22 hold onto a ball....I replayed that play at home too many times....3 Steps and fumble caused by ground....................

This wasn't an instance that involves the Calvin Johnson Rule, which was originally the Burt Emmenaeulle Rule (which never would've happened if we would have stopped Alstot from running 30 yards horizontally and 2 yards vertically the previous week or if the Turk brother (RIP) snapped the ball correctly)....

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

@DikShuttle: "As fars as manos de piedra being down by contact... "

manos de piedra? really?

CLASSIC!

Posted by: BenThere | October 18, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and am I right (if anyone's still here) that even assuming a catch, if you go to ground NOT as the result of any contact from a tackler, the ground CAN cause a fumble? (Someone above may have made this point.)

So, aren't we glad it wasn't a catch, ridiculous though the rule may be? Catch, ground causes fumble (a legal, actual fumble), Colts recover.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | October 18, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I can't rule on the catch/no catch debate. But I saw two points of contact between burgandy and white, maybe three.

Its a done deal, but I'm finding this debate quite amusing.

How many shrimp do you think AH ate up in the box? How many did CP get? Or Rocky, for that matter?

Posted by: Rando | October 18, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

4thFloor:
"This wasn't an instance that involves the Calvin Johnson Rule..."

What distinguishes it from the Calvin Johnson Rule in your mind? It seems to me, his TD and CR22's INT were removed for the exact same reason... after catching the ball, they went to the turf and quickly let the ball go.

Posted by: Alan4 | October 18, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

The Redskins finally have some players that give 100% and are showing production on the field.

Instead of trashing them or wishing for Adrian Peterson, perhaps the fans can just support Shanahan and these guys until they have a fair chance to rebuild the roster from the disaster that was the Cerrato years.......

Just a thought.

Posted by: RoyHobbs4 | October 18, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

@4thFloor
~~~
I do.

Posted by: ArmchairGM | October 18, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch a bitter BMitch in the post game show?

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

4th,

I totally saw that! I was at a bar and immimdately started yelling that Caldwell made the worst challnge call of the year. I was thinking they were going to call it a int because he made a football move had possesion then lost the ball do the ground (which cant cause a fumble).....

Posted by: cosmiccatnip1 | October 18, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch a bitter BMitch in the post game show?

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

4th,

I totally saw that! I was at a bar and immimdately started yelling that Caldwell made the worst challnge call of the year. I was thinking they were going to call it a int because he made a football move had possesion then lost the ball do the ground (which cant cause a fumble).....

Posted by: cosmiccatnip1 | October 18, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Ryan Torain had a great game. The lack of conversion on the third and one in the fourth quarter is not why the Skins lost. They lost the game in the third quarter because of a lack of urgency in the third quarter. This scene continues to repeat itself. Everyone at fedex field knew the Skins were taking too long to get down the field and get scores. The Skins settle for field goals at moments when they must impose their will to get touchdowns. The Colts game was clearly winnable. And, please do not blame Torain. This guy is a beast at running back.

Posted by: DZPost | October 18, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that was such a bogus call. How they could review that catch and say he didn't catch it is beyond me.

I think one of the most important factors was the absence of the fans in the whole first half. They let Manning call his hurry-up offense with near silence. Finally in the second half they were making enough noise to make his life difficult, but he'd already run over us for two td's! Total waste of home field advantage.

Posted by: MitchTurner | October 18, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

First, that pitch to Torain on 3rd and 1 was a horrible call. YOu need one yard, why pitch it 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage to pick up one?

Second, to that liar claiming McNabb is 24th QB in league; look again. nfl.com has him listed as 6th. That's above Rogers, Schaub, and Brady.

Posted by: alocowboy | October 18, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

A toss sweep to the short side of the field against a small, fast defense on third and one is ALWAYS a bad call! Straight from the Jason Garrett book of play calling.

Posted by: gbraxton7 | October 18, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch a bitter BMitch in the post game show?

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

4th,

I totally saw that! I was at a bar and immimdately started yelling that Caldwell made the worst challnge call of the year. I was thinking they were going to call it a int because he made a football move had possesion then lost the ball do the ground (which cant cause a fumble).....

Posted by: cosmiccatnip1 | October 18, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

-----------------------------------------

The call you geniuses are referring to was about possession.

The ground can't cause a fumble is a rule in place when there is contact. If you fall... and the ground bounces the ball out of your possession and there is no defender contacting you it is a live football!! just think about it... How many times have you seen guys go down and get back up and run because they were not contacted by a defender???

Posted by: skins91r | October 18, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

on Dhall coverage on the garcon td. what the hell. i play safety on my varsity football team and know some things on corner. #1 is think pass first. #2 play on their inside and stay over top. why play him on his outside shoulder and even with him. if hes goin vertical and dhall is on the outside manning will make that thro 90% of the time. if your on his inside, make manning make a difficult throw to garcons outside shoulder which is a 20% completion rate. and as a corner, the big play WILL HAPPEN. the idea is to make it happen as little as possible. terrible play by dhall in my opinion

Posted by: redskinfreak26a | October 18, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"We win the game with Torain playing in the fourth. On the drive that ended overthrowing Armstrong on fourth down, on the play where Donovan was sacked, I'm screaming at my TV at the snap to run the ball."

Posted by: crashinghero | October 18, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I felt your pain Sunday night, too, hero!! I thought that We win the game with Torain playing in the fourth. On the drive that ended overthrowing Armstrong on fourth down, on the play where Donovan was sacked, I'm screaming at my TV at the snap to run the ball. The Colts rushed three and dropped eight, and Torain would have blown through. Hell, Williams would have as well, but I don't think they had the confidence in him to run it at that stage in the game.

Of course, even with how things went on second and third down, we still would have picked up the first if McNabb had gone to Davis instead of Armstrong. We had plenty of time and all our time outs, so why did we go for it? Armstrong was covered by two guys - it's as though the play was drawn up for Armstrong to take the top off the defense so McNabb could hit an intermediate route, and McNabb just didn't understand the playcall... Ugh.

Posted by: crashinghero | October 18, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I feel your pain, hero! I'd like to add McNabb was intercepted in the 1st quarter on a play that I felt SHOULD have been a run. Everyone who has beaten the Colts did so by running the ball. The Skins didn't and that's why they lost, IMO.

Posted by: jboogie1 | October 19, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I think Torain was benched. He did not follow the run block scheme correctly and it was his second time trying to bounce it outside when he could have taken it up the middle.

Posted by: EJack78 | October 19, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch a bitter BMitch in the post game show?

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

4th,

I totally saw that! I was at a bar and immimdately started yelling that Caldwell made the worst challnge call of the year. I was thinking they were going to call it a int because he made a football move had possesion then lost the ball do the ground (which cant cause a fumble).....

;;;;;;;;;;;;;


on that play the receiver's foot hit the back of CR22's leg. I saw that on a replay from one angle you could see it, but not from another angle. the foot isf I recall correctly touched CR while on his way to the ground.

Posted by: greenstheman | October 19, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch a bitter BMitch in the post game show?

And that CR22 1st INT was a catch/Down by contact. He caught the ball, took THREE steps and went to the ground, which caused the funble.....Anyone else see it that way?

Posted by: 4thFloor | October 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

4th,

I totally saw that! I was at a bar and immimdately started yelling that Caldwell made the worst challnge call of the year. I was thinking they were going to call it a int because he made a football move had possesion then lost the ball do the ground (which cant cause a fumble).....

;;;;;;;;;;;;;


on that play the receiver's foot hit the back of CR22's leg. I saw that on a replay from one angle you could see it, but not from another angle. the foot isf I recall correctly touched CR while on his way to the ground.

Posted by: greenstheman | October 19, 2010 12:42 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I saw it the same way. The WR foot made contact with CR#22 so if he had hung on to the ball he would have been down by contact just like Dirty#30 in OT against the Packers.

However, it was not a catch under the new rules because he was falling backward while making the catch and didn't "show the ref the ball". The new rule supplants the old "two steps" rule.

eliminating "two steps" and "out by contact" make officiating easier. Refs no longer have to count steps when determining a completion, and they don't have to consider whether a WR would have come down in bounds if it weren't for contact.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | October 19, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company