As halftime begins in Jacksonville, the Jaguars are decimating the Titans.
It’s 27-3, Jags.
The most recent score came after officials seemed to properly call an end-zone catch made by receiver Mike Sims-Walker not a catch, because he was going to the ground while making the catch and did not keep possession as he hit the ground.
But, after viewing the video, referee Alberto Riveron overturned the call on the field.
Though the powers-that-be explained to CBS that Sims-Walker had two feet down and possession of the ball, the fact is that, while catching the ball, Sims-Walker was being dragged to the ground by Tennessee cornerback Jason McCourty. And so, as we understand the rule, Sims-Walker needs to keep possession when he hits the ground.
Here’s the rule, once again: “If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”
The key phrase, in our view, is “with or without contact by an opponent.” McCourty was tackling Sims-Walker as he caught the ball. So, regardless of how many feet or other body extremities touched the ground in the process, Sims-Walker was required to keep control of the ball once he landed.
He didn’t.
No catch, in our view.
With Titans coach Jeff Fisher on the wrong end of the call, the fact that he’s a co-chair of the Competition Committee virtually ensures that the rule will be reconsidered in the offseason.
If Fisher isn’t off the committee by then. And that could happen if owner Bud Adams decides it’s time to end the tenure of the head coach with the longest tenure in the NFL.
Regardless, when V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira recently said of this rule that “it’s very difficult for people to grasp what is a catch and what isn’t a catch,” we assumed that he wasn’t referring to the men who are charged with knowing when to overturn a call on the field based on indisputable visual evidence.
